1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.245/2008 Manager, St.Teresa's Ashram Girls' Sr. Secondary School, Udaipur v. Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur and others Date of Order :: 9th April, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Tribhuvan Gupta, for the petitioner. .... By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the award dated 17.11.2006 passed by Labour Court, Udaipur in Labour Case No.34/2000. By the award aforesaid the Labour Court declared the retrenchment of the respondent workman illegal and, therefore, directed the petitioner employer to reinstate him in service with 24% of the back wages. The only argument advanced to challenge the award impugned is that the adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court is without jurisdiction as the jurisdiction to entertain a service dispute relating to employees at an educational institution is within the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan Non Governmental Educational Institution Tribunal as per the provisions 2 of the Rajasthan Non Governmental Educational Institution Tribunal Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1989”). I do not find any substance in the argument advanced. The petitioner is certainly a recognised institute as per the Act of 1989 but is also an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”). The respondent is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947, thus, the dispute between the employer and the workman is an industrial dispute. An industrial dispute can very well be adjudicated under the Act of 1947. As a matter of fact concurrent jurisdiction is vested with the tribunal created under the Act of 1989 and to any adjudicating forum under the Act of 1947 to adjudicate a service dispute i.e. also an industrial dispute. No error, therefore, can be pointed out in adjudication of the dispute relating to the petitioner and the respondent workman by the Labour Court, Udaipur. It is also relevant to note that even on merits a finding of fact is given by the Labour Court to the effect that the respondent workman was discontinued from service without adhering mandatory condition precedent for a valid retrenchment. The Labour Court, thus, removed an illegality and this Court by setting aside the award on the ground advanced by counsel for the petitioner must not restore an illegality. 3 For the reasons stated above, the petition for writ is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.