IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2558 OF 1997 WRIT PETITION NO.2558 OF 1997 WRIT PETITION NO.2558 OF 1997 Shramik Sena Khairne, Bonkode ) Post, Turbhe, Thane-Belapur Road, ) District Thane. )..Petitioner. V/s. 1. M/s.St.Thomas Society Sandor ) Bassein, Carmelite Convent ) English School, Kharals, Vasai, ) Dist. Thane. ) ) 2. The Chairman, Sister Dulcee, ) Carmmelite (St.Thomas Society), ) Kharale, Vasai, Dist. Thane. ) ) 3. Shri J.P.Limaye, Member, ) Industrial Court, Thane. )..Respondents. Mr.K.S.Bapat with Sachin B. Shetye for petitioner. Mr.G.M.Thomas for respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 21ST APRIL, 2008. DATED : 21ST APRIL, 2008. DATED : 21ST APRIL, 2008. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent Nos.1 & 2. 2. This petition is filed to challenge the order dated 31/3/1997 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane dismissing the complaint (ULP) No.210 of 1996 filed by the petitioner. -= : 2 : =- 3. The complaint was filed to challenge the notice put up by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 on 1/4/1996 so as to close their transport section with effect from 4/4/1996. The complaint was filed under item No.6 of schedule II and item Nos.9 & 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (‘MRTU & PULP Act’ for short). After hearing both the parties, the Industrial Court framed the following issues:- "1) Whether the present complaint is maintainable in this Court and whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint or not ? 2) Whether the complaint proves that the respondents have committed unfair labour practices under item 6 of Sch.2 and 9 and 10 of Sch.IV of MURTU & PULP Act or not ? 3) Whether the complainant proves that there is a lock out in the garb of closure by the respondent ? 4) Whether the respondent proves that the transport department is closed irrevocably and permanently as alleged ? 5) Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as prayed in para 9 of the Complaint ? 5) What order ? " 4. By the impugned Judgment and order dated 31/3/1997, the Industrial Court held that the complaint -= : 3 : =- was not maintainable and in view of the establishment of the School Tribunal under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (‘MEPS Act’ for short), the School Tribunal would have jurisdiction. The Industrial Court further held that even on merits the complainant has failed to prove that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 have committed unfair labour practices. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present petition is filed. 5. Mr.Bapat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to the Judgment of this Court in the case of Satyawadi s/o. Ganpatrao Pimple & Satyawadi s/o. Ganpatrao Pimple & Satyawadi s/o. Ganpatrao Pimple & Anr. V/s. Aruna w/o. Ganpatrao Narwade & Anr. Anr. V/s. Aruna w/o. Ganpatrao Narwade & Anr. Anr. V/s. Aruna w/o. Ganpatrao Narwade & Anr. reported in 2000 II CLR 128 2000 II CLR 128 2000 II CLR 128 wherein it is inter alia held thus:- " ...The employees in private schools may consist of teaching and non-teaching and so far as non-teaching employees are concerned, they may have a remedy of a dual nature in as much as to approach the School Tribunal under Section 9 in respect of the matters provided thereunder or to the Education Officer in respect of the matters of seniority or any other grievance and alternatively, to approach the Labour Court / Industrial Court, under the provisions of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971..." 6. Mr.Thomas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 submitted that the closure of the transport section does not constitute unfair labour practice under MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. He -= : 4 : =- submitted that since the School is covered under the special provisions of MEPS Act of 1977, the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 is not applicable to the present case. 7. In the light of the aforesaid decision of this Court in the case of Satyawadi (supra) which is holding the field till date, it will have to be held that the order passed by the Industrial Court declining to entertain the complaint is erroneous. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that the MEPS Act applies to the non-teaching staff of the school, the non-teaching staff are entitled to invoke the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act to seek redressal in the matter. 8. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the School Tribunal under section 9 of the MEPS Act is restricted to the categories set out therein. Therefore, the question as to whether the closure of the transport section with effect from 4/4/1996 amounts to lock out or constitutes unfair labour practice is an issue that could be considered by the Industrial Court. Accordingly, the decision of the Industrial Court that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint cannot be sustained. 9. The decision of the Industrial Court on merits is also unsustainable, because, once the Industrial -= : 5 : =- Court, though erroneously came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the Industrial Court ought not to have proceeded to decide the matter on merits. 10. In this view of the matter, the entire Judgment of the Industrial Court is quashed and set aside. It is held that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the petitioner and the Industrial Court is directed to decide the complaint afresh on merits and in accordance with law. 11. The petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) -= : 6 : =- HIGH COURT - APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.2558 OF 1997 WRIT PETITION NO.2558 OF 1997 WRIT PETITION NO.2558 OF 1997 Date of decision : 21ST APRIL, 2008 Date of decision : 21ST APRIL, 2008 Date of decision : 21ST APRIL, 2008 Transcript of ORDER submitted FOR APPROVAL The Hon’ble Justice Shri J.P.DEVADHAR The Hon’ble Justice Shri J.P.DEVADHAR The Hon’ble Justice Shri J.P.DEVADHAR 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important question of law and whether a copy of the Judgment should be sent to Nagpur, Aurangabad & Goa offices ? Transcribed by :- S.A.Sharma, P.A.