1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8033 OF 2009 Lahanu Lakha Mali Alias Bhil .. PETITIONER VERSUS The Chairman Swarupsing Naik Ayurvedic College & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, advocate for respondents. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 2 nd SEPTEMBER, 2010 PER COURT : 1 The petitioner who was employee of the respondent / institution is raising exception to the order passed by the learned Judge of the Industrial Court in revision ULP no. 20/2008 dt. 5-3-2009 whereby the revision application tendered by the respondent / management came to be allowed and the order passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court in complaint ULP no. 8/2005 came to be quashed and set aside. 2 Dispute pertains to the action of termination stated to have been 2 taken by the management as a result of which the services of the petitioner / employee were dispensed with. After considering rival contentions, trial court was pleased to allow the complaint and directed management / respondent to re-instate the employee with continuity in service. Order passed by the Labour Court was subjected to challenge in the revision application by the management before the revisional court which came to be allowed. The revisional court has taken a view that there is an alternate remedy of preferring appeal available to the employee in view of section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and as such complaint before the Labour Court could not be entertainable. Apart from the question in respect of entertainability of the complaint by the Labour Court, the Revisional Court has also considered the case put up by the employee on its own merits. 3 The view adopted by the Labour Court in respect of entertainability of the complaint is supported by judgment in the matter of Madhukar Baburao Achari vs. Shikshak Smarak Sanstha & another reported in 2000(4) Bom.C.R. 796. In view of the legal position enumerated above, no interference is called for in the instant petition. Petitioner, however, may pursue the alternate remedy available to him in accordance with law. This 3 petition however does not call for any interference in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition therefore stands rejected. 4 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp8033.09.odt