THE PRINCIPAL, SHREE AYURVED MAHAVIDYALAYA Vs. PREMCHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Writ Petitions can be conveniently decided by this common judgment in view of similarity of issues involved therein between the same parties. The respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 3908 of 2005 claimed to be working in the hospital run by Shree Ayurved Mahavidyalaya-petitioner, since 01-05-1979. According to the respondent No. 1, though he was working as Museum Keeper, he was also entrusted the work of Clerk in Gynec Section. According to the respondent No. 1, he had been working continuously from 20-05-1986 to 26-06-1986, but his signature on the muster roll was not permitted to be made and he was also not paid salary for the said period. He, therefore, made a complaint on 27-06-1986 after which he was permitted to resume his duties. It is his case that though he worked continuously, his services were orally terminated w.e.f. 01-01-1987. On said cause of action, the respondent No. 1 preferred complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 [for short, 'the said Act']. Aforesaid complaint was filed under provisions of Item 1 Schedule IV of the said Act before the Labour Court. The petitioner opposed aforesaid complaint and also raised an issue as regards the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to try the said complaint. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 was absent from duly from 22-08-1986 without any intimation. It was stated that his services had not been terminated and that, the respondent No. 1 himself had refused to join his duties.

(2.) The Labour Court by order dated 15-05-1992 decided the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and held that the complaint as filed was tenable before the Labour Court. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 led his evidence. The case, however, proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner and hence no evidence was led from its side. Thereafter, by judgment dated 09-02-1994, the learned Judge of the Labour Court allowed the complaint and after setting aside the order of termination, directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 on his former post with continuity of service. Similarly, backwages were also awarded from 01-01-1987 till the date of reinstatement. The petitioner being aggrieved by aforesaid order preferred revision application under Section 44 of the said Act before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court by order dated 12-10-2004, dismissed the said revision application and confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner, thereafter, filed Writ Petition No. 6111/2004 and by judgment dated 19-04-2005, this Court set aside the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 12-10-2004 and remanded the proceedings to the Industrial Court for deciding the issue of jurisdiction. The petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs. 17.000/- to the respondent No. 1.

(3.) Pursuant to aforesaid order of remand, the Industrial Court thereafter again heard the respective parties and by judgment dated 20-06-2005 dismissed the revision application holding that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain aforesaid complaint on merits. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has challenged aforesaid judgment dated 20-06-2005 passed by the Industrial Court in Writ Petition No. 3908/2005. Similarly, the order dated 09-02-1994 passed by the Labour Court is also under challenge.