REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI Vs. LATA BHOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. By consent heard forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner University by the present action seeks to impugn the order of the Industrial Court dated September, 6, 2002 partly allowing the complaint and holding that the petitioners herein are guilty of unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act and further directing the petitioners herein to issue fresh appointment letter to the complainant with continuity of service after expiry of six months period of service. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that considering section 59 of the maharashtra University Act, 1994 the Industrial Court would have no jurisdiction as in the case of termination it is the Tribunal constituted under the Maharashtra universities Act, 1994 which alone would have jurisdiction in cases where the services of a teacher or other employee is dismissed or removed or his services are otherwise terminated or reduced in rank. It is pointed out that the respondent was appointed by letter dated 13th September, 1995 on purely temporary basis as junior typist-cum-clerk in the examination section for a period not exceeding six months. It is pointed out that therefore by efflux of time in the normal course on expiry of said period of six months the services of the petitioner herein would come to an end. It is pointed out that the respondent herein filed a complaint before the Labour Court being ULP No. 169 of 1996 anticipating that the services will be terminated after 3rd April, 1996. The Labour Court was pleased to grant interim relief. Thereafter the complaint was withdrawn. The Labour Court extended the stay upto 24th June, 1996. The Complaint before the Industrial Court was filed on 25th June, 1996. In other words it is pointed out that as on 25th June, 1996 the respondent was no longer in service and consequently the Industrial Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

(3.) ON the other hand on behalf of the respondents their learned Counsel contends that the petition has been filed belatedly i. e. nearly after two years of the order of the Industrial Court and that too, only after the respondent herein had taken proceedings by way of execution. It is further submitted that when the petition was filed before the Labour Court the petitioner was in service and the termination had not yet been taken place. In these circumstances the Labour court had jurisdiction. Apart from that it is contended that the complaint before the Industrial Court was filed on 25th June, 1996. The Industrial Court has recorded a finding that there has been no termination and in these circumstances the Industrial Court would have jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the complaint. It is further pointed out that another learned Judge of this Court in the case of Satyawadi Ganpatrao Pimple and ors. vs. Aruna Ganpatrao Narwade and anr. , 2000 (2) Mh. L. J. 322, dealing with the matter under the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)Regulation Act has taken a view insofar as non-teaching staff is concerned that remedy of filing civil suit under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is impliedly barred. At the outset it may be pointed out that on a careful perusal of the judgment and the ratio therein it will be clear that what was in issue before the learned Judge was whether the Civil Court and the Tribunal under the m. E. P. S. Act had concurrent jurisdiction. Any other passing observations made therein while answering the said issue cannot constitute to be ratio of that judgment.