1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2336 OF 2008 Maharashtra Education Trust and others .. Petitioners. Vs. Mrs. Violet Michael Lopes ..Respondent. ..... Mr. Mihir Desai with Mr. Sagar G. Talekar for the Petitioners. Mr. Rajesh Gehani for the Respondent. ..... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 23rd April, 2008. P.C. : 1. The Petition arises out of an order of the Labour Court dated 3rd September, 2007 directing the Petitioner to pay 50% of the salary due to the Respondent workman from the date of the retrenchment till the decision of the complaint. The order has been confirmed in revision by the Industrial Court on 4th January, 2008. The Respondent has been working as a clerk in the pre­primary section of the Petitioner since June 1985. Upon her retrenchment in pursuance of a resolution of the Board of Trustees, the Respondent moved a complaint of unfair labour practices under 2 the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Labour Court while granting interlocutory relief has principally founded its judgment on the premise that the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 would apply and that the principles laid down in Rule 26 for effecting retrenchment ought to have been followed. The order of the Labour Court has been confirmed in revision. 2. On behalf of the Petitioner it has been submitted that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Governing Body, Nirmal Education Society, Gondia v. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur1, it is now a well settled principle of law that the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 would not apply to a pre­primary section and consequently, the rules framed under the Act would have no obligation. This position is not disputed by Counsel appearing for the Respondent workman. However, it was urged that the ultimate order which has been 1 1996(2) Mh.L.J. 592 3 passed by the Labour Court was fair and proper and it would not warrant interference. 3. The basis on which interim relief has been granted by the Labour Court is the applicability of the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the rules framed thereunder. This basis is erroneous having regard to the judgment of the Division Bench in Nirmal Education Society (supra). The provisions of Rule 26 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules 1981 would ex facie therefore have no application. 4. In these circumstance, it would be appropriate and proper to allow the petition, set aside the impugned orders and restore the application for interim relief for reconsideration on merits by the Labour Court. 5. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The order of the Labour Court dated 3rd September, 4 2007 and the order of the Industrial Court dated 4th January, 2008 are quashed and set aside. The Application filed by the Respondent (Exhibit 2) for the grant of interim relief shall stand restored to the file of the Labour Court which shall pass fresh orders after hearing the parties. The Labour Court may set down an expeditious schedule for the disposal of the application for interim relief. The Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. *****