Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4 The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Standard Code was not applicable in the case of respondent no.1 institution and therefore, the letter of termination which was issued under provisions of the Standard Code was illegal. He submitted that if it is held that the Standard Code is not applicable to respondent no.1 institution, then in that case, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Employment Standing Orders Act become applicable to the employees of respondent no.1. It was submitted that therefore, terms and conditions of employment of the petitioner were governed by the Model Standing Orders or certified Standing Orders. It was submitted that admittedly, no certification had been done in respect of the Standing Orders and therefore, the Model Standing Orders were clearly applicable to the petitioner and the respondent no.1 institution. Shri Mihir Desai, learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that there was no provision for compulsory retirement under the said Model Standing Orders and and therefore, order passed by respondent no.1 compulsorily retiring the petitioner would amount to illegal termination not permissible under the law. It was submitted that the Standing Orders Act would become applicable by operation of law or by specific exemptions granted by the State. It was, therefore, submitted that if the Standing Orders does not apply, then in that event, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act will be applicable and consequently, provision of Sections 25F, 25N, 25H would be applicable in the present case. Alternatively, it was submitted that even if the Standard Code is held to be applicable, even then in view of Rule 137 of the Pension Rules provides that unless it is impossible to provide employment to the employee, he should not be compulsorily retired. It was submitted that though a post was available with Sir J.J. College of Achitecture, instead of absorbing him in the J.J. College, the petitioner was sent back to respondent no.1. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that he was entitled to get back wages with continuity of service and benefits from 14.10.97 till the date he reached the age of superannuation in December 2007.

7 Under Section 77A of the Bombay University Act, the State is empowered to formulate a Standard Code for non-teaching staff at the University and allied institutions. This section permits Standard Code to be prescribed by the State instead of Officers, teachers and other employees of the University and the teachers and other employees in the affiliated colleges and recognised institutions (other than those managed and maintained by the State Government). Though the Bombay University Act, 1977, was repealed by the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, the savings clause of the new Act protects the existing code and as such, the Standard Code as formulated under the Bombay University Act continues to be applicable to the non-teaching staff of the University and other allied institutions.

Resolved that the Centre will continue to follow the prevailing university rules and regulations governing the service conditions of the employees (including officers) as contained in the Standard Code.

8 Thus, the respondent no.1 has adopted the Standard Code and a resolution was passed to that effect in the Governing Council s meeting held on 3.10.87. Similarly, by letter dated 14.2.89 written by the Deputy Secretary to the Government to the Director Western Regional Instrumentation Centre, the Director has been informed that the Standard Code is applicable to the non-teaching staff of the WRIC. Thirdly, the Director of respondent no.1 had written a letter dated 18.1.89 to the petitioner herein informing him that the Standard Code which is applicable to the employees of the University of Bombay is also applicable to the employees of WRIC.

10 Therefore, even if the respondent no.1 is not affiliated to the university or is not a recognised institution, even then the Governing Council of the respondent no.1 having adopted the Standard Code and the respondent no.1 being informed about it, it cannot be said that the Standard Code is not applicable to the employees of the respondent no.1.

11 Once it is held that the Standard Code is applicable to employees of respondent no.1, the alternate submission made by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act apply to respondent no.1 cannot be accepted. Therefore, the question of non-