Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. That apart, whether the practice adopted by the Employer is an unfair labour practice is a separate cause of action that the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to examine. That would not take away the explicit right to appeal against a dismissal conferred by Section 81(1) of the Universities Act, which clearly is intended to override anything else stated in any other law for the time being in force, which expression would also include the MRTU & PULP Act.

18. Yet another element is that Section 81(1) is an entitlement to challenge a dismissal, while the grievance taken to the Industrial Court was the allegedly unfair labour practice adopted at the stage of suspension. At that stage, there was no dismissal of the Employee, for the theory of an election of jurisdiction to have any basis. It was not as if the Employee had been dismissed for a choice to be made between the Universities Act and the MRTU & PULP Act (even assuming that an election between the two was tenable).

26. It is in this context that it was held that in view of Section 59 of the MRTU & PULP Act, the recourse to the Industrial Disputes Act was barred. Section 59 of the MRTU & PULP Act is extracted below :

59. Bar of proceedings under Bombay or Central Act.-- If any proceeding in respect of any matter falling within the purview of this Act is instituted under this Act, then no proceeding shall at any time be entertained by any authority in respect of that matter under the Central Act or, as the case may be, the Bombay Act; and if any proceeding in respect of any matter within the purview of this Act is instituted under the Central Act, or as the case may be, the Bombay Act, then no proceeding shall at any time be entertained by the Industrial or Labour Court under this Act.

[Emphasis Supplied]

27. It will be seen from a plain reading of the foregoing that the legislature explicitly provided that where the matter fell within the purview of the MRTU & PULP Act, no proceeding would be initiated by any authority in respect of that matter under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is defined in the legislation as the " Central Act". Another local legislation i.e. the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 which was defined as the " Bombay Act". If any proceeding in respect of any matter within the purview of the MRTU & PULP Act were to be instituted, under the Industrial Disputes Act or under the Bombay Act, then no proceedings could be entertained for the same matter under the January 5, 2026 Purti Parab WP-5878-2024.doc MRTU & PULP Act, and vice versa.

29. In sharp contrast, there is no ouster of the Universities Act in the MRTU & PULP Act, and indeed, Section 81 of the former is a non- obstante provision, thereby obviating any scope for an overlap leading to a conflict. The non-obstante provision ensures that there is no conflict or repugnancy created between the two statutes. It is only if one legislative stipulation cannot co-exist with another, that repugnancy would emerge. On the contrary, the legislative choice is that the Universities Act would override any conflicting provision in any other January 5, 2026 Purti Parab WP-5878-2024.doc law in force, which would include the MRTU & PULP Act. Therefore, the invocation of Jacob Chinnannan does not turn the needle in favour of the Employer's contention on implied ouster of jurisdiction. On the contrary, there is an explicit overriding of the MRTU & PULP Act when it comes to the statutory right to appeal under the Universities Act.