IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1203 OF 2008 Vidyalankar Institute of Technology and Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Union ...Respondents Mr Shekhar Naphade, Sr Advocate alongwith Mr S.M.Naik for the Petitioners. Mr S. Pathak for the Respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. J. J. DATE : 09th June, 2008 DATE : 09th June, 2008 DATE : 09th June, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed on 22nd February, 2008 on preliminary issues (issue Nos.1 and 2) which have been framed by the Industrial Court pursuant to an order dated 19th September, 2007 below Exhibit U-2. 2. The petitioners before me are respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the complaint (ULP No.110 of 2007) which is preferred by the respondent-original complainant alleging unfair labour practices under Items 1(a)(b), 4(a) of Schedule II and Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. :2: 3. It appears that during the course of hearing of an application for interim relief an objection was raised to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to hear and decide the subject complaint. The objections are raised on the basis that the petitioners are not an industry and secondly that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint in as much as the Government Resolution dated 16th April, 2003 governs the field and therefore the Tribunal constituted under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 alone has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. 4. By the impugned order the objections have been over-ruled and the Industrial Court has held that it has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. 5. Mr Naphade, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that although the order is styled as deciding preliminary issues of jurisdiction and maintainability, yet, the findings rendered therein are conclusive and now nothing remains in so far as the maintainability and jurisdiction of the court below. In other words, the order concludes the issues as far as jurisdiction and maintainability of the complaint. 6. On the other hand it is contended that the impugned order is interlocutory and there is no reason :3: to interfere with the same at this stage. If the final orders in the complaint are adverse to the petitioners, then, while impugning them they can always challenge the subject findings and order in that behalf. 7. I have perused the petition and the annexures thereto with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the both sides. In my view, all that has been held at this stage is that the complaint is maintainable and hence therefore can be decided. While it is true that the objections to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court have been raised not only on the ground that the petitioners cannot be termed as an industry but assuming that they can be so termed the complaint in so far as it seeks the reliefs and more particularly the relief with regard to the benefits, then, the special Tribunal constituted under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 alone would have jurisdiction. My attention was invited to the prayers in the complaint, the averments, the government resolutions and the provisions of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and more particularly section 8(3) and section 59 thereto. 8. In my view, it is not necessary to interfere with the order under challenge at this stage. It cannot be stated that the petitioners have no remedy to raise the :4: issue of jurisdiction and maintainability any further. Merely because they participate in further proceedings does not mean that they are precluded forever from challenging the issue of maintainability of the complaint and jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to entertain and try it. Considering the government resolution and the law laid down by this Court with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, in my view, it cannot be said that the Industrial Court’s order is final and conclusive. Since the issues are being kept open by me for being agitated and raised after hearing and final disposal of the complaint needless to clarify that all findings of the Industrial Court are tentative and prima facie and will not prevent the petitioners from challenging them as and when they impugn the final orders in the complaint. In other words, if the final order in the complaint is adverse to the petitioner, then, while challenging it the petitioners can raise appropriate plea with regard to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court and maintainability of the present complaint and merely because this Court has disposed of the present petition would not preclude the petitioner from raising them. All contentions in that behalf are kept open. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. :5: (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)