WP/260/10 & WP/1851/10 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.260 OF 2010 Gangai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pandharpur .. Petitioners V/s. Ranjana Srimant Gosavi & Ors. .. Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1851 OF 2010 Mujawar Sayyed Chandulal .. Petitioner V/s. Gangai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pandharpur & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Siddharth R. Ronghe for the Petitioners in WP/260/2010 and for the Respondent No.1 in WP/1851/2010. Ms. Manjiri Parasnis for the Petitioner in WP/1851/2010. Smt. G.P. Mulekar, AGP, for Respondent No.1 in WP/260/2010. Mr. A.P. Vanarase, AGP, for Respondent No.2 in WP/260/2010. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 19 TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: 1. These two Writ Petitions have been filed against the common orders dated 29th July, 2009, WP/260/10 & WP/1851/10 : 2 : passed by the Industrial Court, Solapur in Revision (ULP) Nos.11 of 2008 and 13 of 2008 and by the Labour Court, Solapur, as well. The Writ Petition No.260 of 2010 has been filed by the Management of the School and Writ Petition No.1851 of 2010 has been filed by the employee who is affected by the concurrent orders passed by both the Courts below. 2. The first issue raised by the learned Advocate for the Management of the School is that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since it was filed against the Management of the School. The workman concerned, i.e. the respondent in both the Writ Petitions, was engaged as a ‘Clerk’ in the School and, therefore, according to the learned Advocate, it is the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Act, 1977 and Rules 1981 framed thereunder, (for short “the MEPS Act”), which would govern the respondent and not the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, (for short “the MRTU & PULP Act”). WP/260/10 & WP/1851/10 : 3 : 3. This issue cannot be raised by the Management of the School in this Writ Petition again. On 17th January, 2005, a learned Single Judge of this Court (Marlapalle, J.) in Writ Petition No.8306 of 2004 filed by the Management, has considered the arguments of the Management of the School that the only remedy available to an employee is to file an Appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act. The learned Single Judge has held that this argument could be accepted only if the employee was a member of the teaching faculty and not otherwise. The learned Single Judge therefore held that the complaint filed under the MRTU & PULP Act was maintainable and the Writ Petition was rejected summarily. 4. In my view, therefore, the Management of the School cannot reopen this issue. It is submitted that in view of the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of St. Ulai High School & Anr. vs. Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh & Anr., reported in 2007 (1) Mh.L.J., the order passed by the learned Single Judge will have to be reconsidered. WP/260/10 & WP/1851/10 : 4 : 5. The Full Bench in the case of St. Ulai High School & Anr. vs. Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh & Anr. (supra) has specifically clarified that in the Reference before it, the Bench has dealt only with the question of maintainability of the Suit in a Civil Court in respect of matters which fall within the purview of Section 9 of the MEPS Act. The Full Bench has further observed that the question as to whether the remedy under industrial legislation would be available to a member of the non teaching staff had not fallen for consideration in the proceedings before it. Therefore the submission of the learned Advocate is without merit. There is no dispute that the respondent in both the Writ Petitions was a member of the non teaching staff since she was employed as a ‘Clerk’. 6. On merits it has been argued by the learned Advocates for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions that the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court are erroneous. They have submitted that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. WP/260/10 & WP/1851/10 : 5 : 1851 of 2010 was employed after a selection process was initiated by the petitioners in the matter. According to the learned Advocates, the respondent No.1-employee has not been recruited after issuing an advertisement or after being selected by a Selection Committee and therefore her appointment is improper and illegal. 7. In my view, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below need not be interfered with. Both the Courts below have rightly held that the respondent in both the Writ Petitions, i.e. Writ Petition No.260 of 2010 and Writ Petition No.1851 of 2010, had proved that her services had been illegally terminated and, therefore, the Management of the School had committed unfair labour practices under Items 1(a), (b), (d) and (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Labour Court has found that the complainant had been recruited after an advertisement was issued and therefore her appointment was not illegal. After discussing the evidence on record, the Labour Court has recorded a WP/260/10 & WP/1851/10 : 6 : finding that despite directions to the Management of the School to produce the muster roll, they had failed to do so. The Labour Court has found the reason for not producing the muster roll was unacceptable. It therefore concluded that the Management of the School had failed to prove that the complainant had abandoned her services. 8. The Labour Court has observed that although the complainant was a graduate, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1851 of 2010, who was appointed in her place, had only passed his 12th standard examination. The Labour Court held that the termination of service was not in good faith but in colourable exercise of employers right and for patently false reasons. The Labour Court concluded therefore that the Management of the School has committed unfair labour practices under Items 1(a) and 1(d) of the Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. 9. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Labour Court found that the complainant was entitled to back wages as well. WP/260/10 & WP/1851/10 : 7 : 10. In my view, the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners in both the Petitions are unsustainable. 11. Both the Writ Petitions are rejected. 12. Mr. Ronghe, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.260 of 2010 seeks a stay of the order. Stay refused.