Bombay High Court
Takhatmal Shrivallabh Homeopathic ... vs The Member, Industrial Court, Amravati ... on 18 January, 2016
Author: Prasanna B. Varale
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 jg.wp4701.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No. 4701 of 2014
Takhatmal Shrivallabh Homeopathic Medical
College and Hospital through its Principal
Rajapeth, Amravati,
Taluka and District Amravati. ... Petitioner
// Versus //
(1) The Member,
Industrial Court,
Amravati.
(2) Ravindra s/o Laxmanrao Nagpure
Aged 45 years, C/o Ballu Dhawane
Near Garden of Amba Vihar,
Amravati, District Amravati. ... Respondents
Shri R. A. Haque, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri D. S. Agnihotri, Advocate for respondent no. 2
Mrs. A. R. Taiwade, AGP for respondent no. 1
CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J.
DATE : 18-1-2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Shri Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Smt. Taiwade, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no. 1.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner - management is challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court dated 5-5-2014 in Revision (ULPN) No. 57 of 2010.
.....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:30:18 :::2 jg.wp4701.14.odt
4. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition can be summarized as follow :-
The petitioner - institute runs a Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital at Amravati. The respondent no. 2 was working as a Driver-cum-
Peon with the petitioner - institute since November, 1997. Though the respondent no. 2 was discharging his duty regularly without there being any interruption, on one day, the respondent no. 2 on account of his ill health was unable to provide service to the Principal of the management -
institute, on the next day, when the respondent no. 2 approached, the President of the Institute abused the respondent no. 2 as a phone call was made to him by the Principal, the respondent no. 2 was obstructed from attending the services from 1-3-2001. The respondent no. 2, feeling aggrieved by the said act of the Institute, approached the learned Labour Court by filing ULP complaint No. 55/2001 alleging that management institute had indulged in unfair labour practices under Item No. 1 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. The petitioner institute resisted the claim of the respondent no. 2 with a preliminary objection and tenability of the complaint. The allegations were denied by the petitioner -
institute in the written statement and it was submitted that the respondent no. 2 was never appointed by the institute - management and the learned Labour Court ought not to have entertained the complaint as the forum is .....3/-::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:30:18 :::
3 jg.wp4701.14.odt provided for the respondent no. 2 to raise his grievance under the Maharashtra Universities Act. The learned Labour Court, on the backdrop of the submissions of the parties, passed the order observing that the Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The learned Labour Court by referring to a judgment, namely, V. Jayaramaiah and anr. Vs. Director, Shri Venkateshwar Institution of Medical Sciences, Tirupathi, Chittor District 2004(I) CLR 176 observed that the petitioner - institute was running a medical college and hospital. It was a view in the judgment in the case of V. Jayaramaiah that medical institute is an industry and further observed that there is a specific forum provided in the Universities Act and the forum is entitled to look into the grievance of termination, but such is not the case in the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Labour Court, the revision was filed by the petitioner - institute. The learned Industrial Court, in the judgment and order while referring to the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, observed that Section 53 of the Maharashtra University Health Sciences Act, 1998 is parimateria with the provisions of Section 58 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, however, there is no Section parimateria to Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act in the Maharashtra University Health Sciences Act, 1998. It further observed that the Maharashtra Universities Act is amended and thereby Maharashtra University Health Sciences Act, 1998 is established. Thus, on these .....4/-::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:30:18 :::
4 jg.wp4701.14.odt grounds, the learned Member of the Industrial Court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner - institute.
5. Shri Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner - institute submits that both the Courts below utterly failed to appreciate the provisions of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act in its proper perspective. He further submits that the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, which came into force in the year 1999, provides an independent forum in view of the provisions i.e. Section 53 of the Act. Shri Haque further submits that the observation of the learned revisional Court that the Maharashtra University Health Sciences Act is a creature by way of an amendment to the Maharashtra Universities Act itself is a erroneous observation. He submits that the Maharashtra University Health Sciences Act is an independent Act including the subjects such as the powers of the Universities, the officers, the conditions of the faculties, the establishment of council under the Act namely academic council, establishment of senate, board of studies and it also takes care of provision of a redressal forum to the teachers and other employees of the Universities, colleges and recognized institutes to hear and settle their grievances.
Learned counsel Shri Haque placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and ors. Vs. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal .....5/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:30:19 :::5 jg.wp4701.14.odt and ors. reported in AIR 2010 SC 1325(1).
6. Shri Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 vehemently submitted that for no fault of the respondent no. 2, he is driven from pillar to post. The submission of Shri Agnihotri is respondent no. 2 lodged a complaint before the Labour Court in the year 2001. The objection was initially raised by the petitioner - institute on the ground of tenability of the complaint by submitting that the forum is provided under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 for redressal of the grievance.
Shri Agnihotri submitted that in view of the judgment of the High Court, remedy would lie as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act and a specific ground in reference to the provisions of Maharashtra Universities Act is raised only before this Court. Shri Agnihotri, then submitted that the respondent no. 2 has rightly approached the learned Labour Court as the only remedy available with the respondent no. 2 was to approach the Labour Court in respect of his illegal termination and as the petitioner - management had indulged itself in an unfair labour practices.
Shri Agnihotri further submitted that though not admitting but assuming the petitioner is having the remedy of approaching the grievance forums in view of the fact that there are two remedies available for the respondent no. 2, it was his choice to avail any of these remedies. Shri Agnihotri, learned counsel submitted that as the respondent was raising the issue of .....6/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:30:19 :::6 jg.wp4701.14.odt his termination, the Grievances Committee would not be in a position to entertain his grievance or redress the grievance of termination.
7. As this is the controversy involved in the present petition, it will be necessary to refer to the said provision on which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance. Section 53 of the Maharashtra University Health Sciences Act, 1998 deals with the subject Grievances Committee. It reads thus :
53.
Grievances Committee (1) There shall be a Grievances Committee in the University to deal with the grievances of teachers and other employees of the University, Colleges, institutions and recognised institutions and to hear and settle grievances as far as may be practicable within six months, and the committee shall make a report to the Management Council.
(2) It shall be lawful for the Grievances Committee to entertain and consider grievances or complaints and report to the Management Council for taking such action as it deems fit and the decisions of the Management Council on such report shall be final.
(3) The Grievances Committee shall consist of the following members, namely :
(a) The Pro-Vice-Chancellor Chairperson;
(b) Four members of the Management Members;
Council nominated by the
Management Council from amongst
themselves
(c) The Registrar Secretary Member
(4) The Registrar shall not have a right to vote.
On perusal of this provision, it clearly reveals that with an object to provide .....7/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:30:19 :::7 jg.wp4701.14.odt forum for redressal of the grievances of the teaching and non-teaching staff, namely, the teachers and other employees in the institutes, colleges and recognised institutions, the forum is established. The provision also makes it clear that the object is not only to provide the forum but also to see that the dispute redressal take place within a reasonable period and as such, time frame is fixed i.e. six months for redressal of the grievances. The constitution of the forum namely Grievances Committee is also of such persons, namely the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, four members of the management council nominated by the Management Council from amongst themselves and the Registrar Secretary. Thus a balance of the academic experts as well as the management members is maintained.
8. In the case of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and ors. Vs. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal and ors. (cited supra), the issue of termination of unapproved teachers was raised before the Apex Court.
The Apex Court, in view of the provisions, namely, Section 2(35) and Section 53 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act observed that the Grievances Committee has the jurisdiction even to entertain the complaint of unapproved teachers. Thus, the Apex Court, in effect, enhanced the scope and compass of the words of teachers and other employees. The Apex Court observed that if the definition of teachers is properly perused, it would appear that within the definition of teachers not .....8/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:30:19 :::8 jg.wp4701.14.odt only full time approved Demonstrators, Tutors, Assistant Lecturers, etc. are included but the definition is wide enough to include "and other persons teaching or giving instructions on full time basis in affiliated colleges or approved institutions in the University. It is not in dispute that the college wherein the respondent no. 2 was working was affiliated to Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. Now, as the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and ors. Vs. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal and ors. (cited supra) gave a wider meaning to the words of teachers and other employees, it will be useful to refer to the unreported judgment of this Court dated March 31, 2008 in bunch of writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition Nos. 5823, 5824 of 2007 and 227 of 2008.
This Court had occasion to consider the provisions, namely, Section 53 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 and this Court observed that :
6. Subsection (3) of Section 53 deals with Constitution of Grievances Committee while subsection (a) states that The Registrar who is member Secretary shall have no right to vote.
The term "grievance" is not defined by 1998 Act. Its dictionary meaning shows that it is a feeling of resentment over something believed to be wrong or unfair. It is a noun from verb "grieve" which means to cause grief or pain of mind to, to make sorrowful, to vex etc. "Grievance" according to any standard English dictionary is cause or source of grief, ground of complaint or condition felt to be oppressive or wrongful distress, burden, hardship, injury etc. It is to be noted that 1998 Act does not provide for any other Forum except Grievance Committee for ventilation of such grievance or for that matter any grievance. It takes & has to take into its fold all types of legal claims which an employee may make against his employer arising out of such .....9/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:30:19 :::9 jg.wp4701.14.odt relationship. Subsection (2) makes it lawful for the Grievances Committee to entertain and consider "grievances" or "complaints" of teachers and other employees. Thus widest possible jurisdiction is conferred upon Grievances Committee by legislature. Section 53 is not prescribing a forum only for those who are aggrieved by some order of management. It provides forum even for those who want to challenge a positive act or an omission to act on part of management.
As this Court had observed that the Grievances Committee takes and has to take into its fold all types of legal claims and further observation that the widest possible jurisdiction is conferred upon Grievances Committee by legislature, (emphasis supplied) the submission of learned counsel Shri Agnihotri that the Grievances Committee would have a limited jurisdiction and issue to termination cannot be called in question before the Grievances Committee cannot be accepted. At the cost of repetition, it would not be out of place to mention that when this Court observed that when the Grievances Committee can deal with all possible grievances, that certainly includes the grievance of teaching employee or other employee and the grievances of illegal termination of teaching or non-teaching employees.
The objection, thus, raised by the petitioner - institute was rejected by both the Courts on untenable grounds. Learned Labour Court proceeded on assumption that forum provided by the Maharashtra Universities Act and though Section 53 is parimateria with the provisions of Section 58, no separate provision is made in the Act of 1998 is a erroneous observation.
Similarly, the revisional Court also erred in observing that the Maharashtra .....10/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:30:19 :::10 jg.wp4701.14.odt University of Health Sciences Act is a creature by amendment. The judgments by the learned Labour Court and the learned Member, Industrial Court impugned in the present petition, needs to be set aside.
9. The learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that as the respondent no. 2 do not approach the Grievances Committee and as much time is lapsed in the legal proceedings before the Labour Court and the Industrial Court and in case, the respondent no. 2 put his grievance for redressal before the Grievances Committee, the Grievance Committee be directed to decide the same expeditiously. The request of Shri Agnihotri is justifiable. As the the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act provided time stipulation for redressal of dispute of six months, no time limit can be directed at this stage, in case the respondent no. 2 approaches the Grievances Committee, the Grievances Committee to decide the dispute as early as possible considering the fact that the respondent no. 2 was fighting litigation for more than 10 years.
10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i) and (ii).
JUDGE wasnik ...../-
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:30:19 :::