:1: 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 SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5026 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5026 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5026 OF 2008 Sau. Vinaya Vinayak Bhatkar ...Petitioner. v. Zilla Mahila & Balvikas Adhikari & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.K.K.Malpathak , adv. for the Petitioner. Mr.Sameer Patil, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1,2 and 4. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 25th November, 2008. DATE: 25th November, 2008. DATE: 25th November, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Petitioner, who is the original plaintiff claims that she was appointed as a superintendent of the respondent no.3/Remand Home run under the control of the respondent nos.1,2 and 4. As the petitioner was removed from that post, she filed suit seeking declaration that the order of her termination was illegal and sought reinstatement. She also filed application, Exhibit 5 for the interim relief of the same nature. The trial Court rejected application on merits, therefore, the plaintiff filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.15 of 2008. The learned District Judge-1 Ratnagiri dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned District Judge came to conclusion that the remand home is an industry and though the plaintiff was getting :2: salary more than Rs.1,600/- and though she was designated as superintendent, she is basically a workman. Plaintiff has filed present petition challenging that order. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that even though the defendant /respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 had pleaded in the written statement that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction, this plea was not pressed before the trial Court itself as noted by the trial Court in paragraph 14 of the order below Exhibit 8. In spite of this, the Appellate Court proceeded to decide and dispose of the appeal only on the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon Sarjerao Bhaurao Ekal, Kolhapur v. S.K.Pant Sarjerao Bhaurao Ekal, Kolhapur v. S.K.Pant Sarjerao Bhaurao Ekal, Kolhapur v. S.K.Pant Walawalkar, Vice President Zilla Parviksha Va Anurakshan Walawalkar, Vice President Zilla Parviksha Va Anurakshan Walawalkar, Vice President Zilla Parviksha Va Anurakshan Sanghatana, Kalhapur and others 2008 (117) FLR 233 Sanghatana, Kalhapur and others 2008 (117) FLR 233 Sanghatana, Kalhapur and others 2008 (117) FLR 233 in which the learned Single Judge of this Court had clearly held that the Remand Home or After Care Hostel does not fall within the term "industry". The learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent nos.1,2 and 4 also concedes to this legal position. Present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Sargerao. Sargerao. Sargerao. Therefore, it must be held that the learned District Judge committed error in holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2. Therefore, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the District Judge, Raigad in :3: Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.15 of 2008 is hereby set aside. The appeal is remanded back to the District Judge, Raigad for hearing the parties afresh on merits and to dispose off the same in accordance with law. 3. Status-quo granted by this Court shall continue till the decision of the appeal by the District Court. District Court shall expedite the hearing of the appeal and dispose off the same as far as possible within three months. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)