1 LPA 196/10 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 196 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 260 OF 2010 Gangai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Anr. .. Appellants V/s Kum. Ranjana Srimant Gosavi & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. G.S. Godbole i/b Mr. S.R. Ronghe for the appellants. Ms. A.V. Suvarna for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 26TH AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this appeal, the appellants challenge the order dated 19th July 2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 260 of 2010. By that order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. 3. The only question raised in the petition was that in view of the provisions of section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977, the complaint 2 LPA 196/10 of the respondent no.1, who was appointed as a clerk in a recognised school, under the MRTU & PULP Act before the Labour Court was not maintainable. That issue was raised before the Labour Court earlier. The Labour Court held that the complaint was maintainable. Against that order, the Writ Petition No. 8306 of 2004 was filed and that petition was rejected by a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 17th January 2005 holding that the Labour Court was justified in holding that the complaint is maintainable. That order became final between the parties as it was not challenged and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has held that now again the same issue cannot be raised. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Adarsha Shikshan Sanstha v. Jaiprakash, 2010 (2) Mah. L.J. 924, which holds that in view of a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of St. Ulai High School v. Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh, 2007 (1) Mah. L.J. 597, a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act by a non-teaching staff of a recognised school is not maintainable. We find that the Full Bench in its aforesaid judgment has left that issue specifically open in paragraph 13(vii), which reads thus: 3 LPA 196/10 “13. For the reasons which we have indicated in the body of the judgment, we, therefore, hold as follows: (vii) We clarify that in the present reference, we have dealt with the question of the maintainability of a suit in the Civil Court in respect of matters which fall within the purview of section 9 of th MEPS Act, 1977. The question as to whether the remedy under industrial legislation would be available to a member of the non-teaching staff has not fallen for consideration in these proceedings since that forms a subject matter of a separate reference to the Full Bench.” 5. In our opinion, it cannot be said that because of the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of St. Ulai High School v. Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh (supra), a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act by a non-teaching staff in a recognised school is not maintainable. It appears that the question whether a particular complaint filed under the MRTU & PULP Act by a non-teaching staff in a recognised school is maintainable or not will have to be decided on the basis of the averments made in 4 LPA 196/10 the complaint. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that even this issue has now been referred to the Full Bench and, therefore, his appeal should be entertained. In our opinion, may be the general question is referred to the Full Bench. However, in the present case, as the appellants have accepted the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17th January 2005 rejecting their petition and confirming the finding of the Labour Court that the complaint is maintainable, in our opinion the appeal cannot be entertained. Rejected. Civil Application No. 248 of 2010 disposed of. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.)