Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This group of 18 petitions are being disposed by this common order. Considering the nature of the issues raised it was appropriate that the matter be disposed finally at the stage of admission.

2. Accordingly I issue Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of all parties petitions are taken up for final disposal.

3. In this group of 18 petitions the issues are common. The orders impugned are passed by the Industrial Court holding that the University had engaged in unfair labour practices under item no.6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of 6 of 80 wp-2976-2018-odt Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971("MRTU & PULP Act"). The university was restrained from terminating services of large number of employees without following due process of law. Before entering upon the factual background it is necessary to mention that among these 18 petitions, 10 are filed by the aggrieved employees in various categories and some unions. 8 are cross petitions filed by the university. Two petitions and two cross petitions of these 18 petitions were filed on the Appellate Side and the remaining 14 on the Original Side. The table below provides a bird's eye view of the composition of the parties in these petitions, the orders impugned therein and number of employees involved and their categories.

37. He submitted that a division bench of this Court has held in Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University vs. Hon'ble Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur Bench . [(2015) (3) CLR 8111] that jurisdiction of the Industrial court was ousted by the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. According to Mr. Aney the jurisdiction of the industrial court is now ousted by virtue of operational of special law viz. the Universities Act. According to him it prevails over the MRTU & PULP Act which is a general law. In consequence, the proceedings before the industrial court were not maintainable.

(m) Apropos the remedy adopted by the petitioner in the case of Sudhakar Vinayak (supra) the division bench of this Court considered a choice of remedies between invoking a remedy under the MEPS Act, the Maharashtra Universities Act of 1994 or the MRTU & PULP Act and held that though the remedy shall be right of the employee and once such option is chosen, the jurisdiction of the authorities created by any of the said Statutes cannot be ousted at the behest of the Management unless it is proved that employee had an alternate and equally efficacious remedy and in that case the appeal filed 51 of 80 wp-2976-2018-odt by the employee under the MEPS Act was held to be tenable. It is case of the petitioners in the case at hand, the chosen remedy was appropriate and the complaint was competent and maintained.

(l) In People's Welfare Society & Anr. (supra) the employees involved were non teaching staff who would fall within definition of workmen within 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This court has observed that even in respect of the Industrial Disputes Act they could not have moved the Court since section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act covered the case of such individual employees. In so far as termination of their services are concerned, the Court further found that the MRTU & PULP Act empowered the Court to prevent an employer from terminating services of employee falling within the definition of 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, whereas such remedy was not provided under the University Act or Industrial Disputes Act. The Court also observed that the jurisdiction under the MRTU & PULP Act could not be totally ousted and it is only in matters of dismissal or removal or where services are otherwise terminated or where an employee was reduced in rank that a remedy be available to an aggrieved employee. In other matters pertaining to service conditions, no remedies are available under section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act. The Court further held that there is no absolute ouster of jurisdiction in so far as Maharashtra Universities Act is concerned and even a case of threatened dismissal would not fall under section 59 of the said Act. The Court 60 of 80 wp-2976-2018-odt observed that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is not ousted in the facts of that case.