judg-wp1426.11.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1426/2011
PETITIONERS :- 1) The Secretary, Pratibha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Januna, Tah. Barshitakli, District Akola.
2) The Principal, Gulam Nabi Azad Arts and
Commerce College, Barshitakli,
Tah. Barshitakli, District Akola.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The Presiding Officer,
The University and College Tribunal,
Nagpur.
2. Ravindra S/o Jayotiram Bhatkar,
aged about 39 years, Occupation-Service,
R/o Gokul Apartment, Gokul Colony,
Akola, Tah. And District Akola.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.1427/2011
PETITIONERS :- 1) The Secretary, Pratibha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Januna, Tah. Barshitakli, District Akola.
2) The Principal, Gulam Nabi Azad Arts and
Commerce College, Barshitakli,
Tah. Barshitakli, District Akola.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The Presiding Officer,
The University and College Tribunal,
Nagpur.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:21:39 :::
judg-wp1426.11.odt 2/6
2. Mufiz Khan Mehboob Khan,
aged about __ years, Occupation-Service,
R/o Main Road, Bazar Line, Barshi Takli
Tahsil Barshi Takli, District Akola.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shi P. C. Madkholkar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Smt. Anjali Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
—————————————————————————————————–
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT J.
DATED : 16.06.2011
O R A L J U D G M E N T
1) Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and
heard.
2) The above petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India
takes exception to the common order dated 29/10/2010 passed by the College
Tribunal, Nagpur, by which order the Appeals filed by the respondent No.1
under Section 59 of The Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 came to be partly
allowed and the petitioner-management, which was the respondent No.1 in the
Appeals was directed to conduct a fresh enquiry against the appellant i.e. the
respondent No.2 in each of the above petitions from the stage as was prevailing
on 31/05/2006 i.e. after the application to allow cross-examination of the
witnesses produced by the presenting officer.
3) The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above petitions are
stated thus.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:21:39 :::
judg-wp1426.11.odt 3/6
The respondent No.2 in each of the above petitions were the employees
of the petitioner management, which is a public trust (The respondent No.2 in
each of the petitions would be referred to as the “said respondents”). The
respondent in Writ Petition No.1426/2011 was employed as clerk and the
respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.1427/2011 was employed as Library
Assistant. The said respondents in each of the petitions were chargesheeted by
the petitioner management and enquiry was commenced against them.
Pursuant to the gamut of processes being completed by the management in
respect of issuance of chargesheet and constitution of enquiry committee, etc., it
appears that an enquiry against the said respondents was completed on
05/07/2006, pursuant to which the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the
petitioner management. Thereafter show cause notices came to be issued to the
said respondents in each of the petitions on or about 07/07/2006. The said
respondents on receipt of the said show cause notices challenged the same by
filing a complaint under Section 28 read with Item 1 of Schedule IV of The
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions And Prevention of Unfair Labour
Practices Act, 1971 and filed an application for stay under Section 30 (2) of the
said Act seeking stay to the effect and operation of the show cause notices dated
07/07/2006 during the pendency of the complaint. The concerned Labour
Court rejected the application filed in the complaint by each of the respondent
No.2 herein for interim relief. It is after the rejection of the interim relief by the
Labour Court by order dated 11/09/2006, that the termination order came to be
served on the said respondents on 29/09/2006. The said respondents thereafter
filed revision applications against the order dated 11/09/2006, by which stay
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:21:39 :::
judg-wp1426.11.odt 4/6
came to be refused by the Labour Court. The said revision applications were
dismissed by the Industrial Court. As mentioned above, the termination order
was already served on the said respondents on 29/09/2006. After the dismissal
of their revision applications, the said respondents filed writ petition bearing
Nos.6150/2006 and 6146/2006, which came to be dismissed by this Court by
order dated 29/01/2007. The respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.1426/2011
thereafter filed Complaint U.L.P. No.27/2006 in which a direction was sought
against the petitioner management seeking withdrawal of the termination order
dated 29/09/2006 and permission to join duty till 31 st October, 2006. The said
application also came to be rejected by the Labour Court on 30/10/2006. It
appears that much after this, the Appeals were filed by the said respondents
before the College Tribunal against the said termination order dated
29/09/2006. In the said Appeals the termination was challenged inter alia on
various grounds urged in the Appeals, which were mainly relating to the
irregularities in the manner in which the enquiry was conducted by the
petitioner management and thereby alleging violation of the principles of
natural justice. It is required to be noted that the remedy of Appeal is provided
under Section 59 of The Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The said provision
is reproduced as under :-
It is postulated in the proviso to Section 59 that, “no such
appeal shall lie to the Tribunal in any case where the matter has
already been decided by a court or Tribunal of competent
jurisdiction or is pending before such court or Tribunal on the date
of commencement of this Act or where the order of dismissal,
removal, otherwise termination of service or reduction in rank was
passed by the management at any time before the date on which::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:21:39 :::
judg-wp1426.11.odt 5/6this Act comes into force and in which case the period of filing an
appeal has expired.”
4) In the instant petitions the conspectus of facts as narrated above ex facie
disclose that against the show cause notices issued to the said respondents, they
had invoked the provisions of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 by filing a complaint
and thereafter had pursued the statutory remedy as provided under the said Act,
even after the passing of the termination order dated 29/09/2006, the said
respondents had also approached this Court as indicated above by way of Writ
Petition Nos.6150/2006 and 6146/2006 on the denial of the interim reliefs to
them. In my view, therefore, in the context of the proviso to Section 59, the
consideration of the said conspectus of facts was germane to the consideration
as to whether the petitioners were entitled at all to file the Appeal before the
College Tribunal. It is required to be noted that though the complaint U.L.P. filed
by the respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.1427/2011 has been withdrawn on
16/03/2011 that would not further the case of the respondent No.1 in any
manner in so far as the maintainability of the Appeal is concerned. In so far as
the respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.1426/2011 is concerned, the complaint
U.L.P. filed by him is yet pending.
5) The impugned order of the College Tribunal does not disclose that the
College Tribunal has considered the said aspect of the matter more so when the
said respondents had themselves pointed out the filing of the said proceedings.
In fact, a reading of the order discloses that the College Tribunal has not even
adverted to the said facts and has proceeded to decide the Appeal on merits
oblivious of the said previous proceedings filed by the said respondents which
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:21:39 :::
judg-wp1426.11.odt 6/6
would have a bearing on the maintainability of the Appeals before it.
6) In my view, the consideration of the filing of the proceedings by the said
respondents by invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the M.R.T.U.
& P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 was a relevant consideration. In absence of which
consideration, the impugned order of the College Tribunal can only be stated to
be vitiated. In that view of the matter, the above writ petitions would have to be
allowed. The impugned common order passed by the College Tribunal dated
29/10/2010 in Appeal Nos.6-A/2007 and 7-A/2007 is set aside and the Appeals
are remanded back to the College Tribunal for a de novo consideration, after
taking into consideration the aspect of the earlier proceedings filed by the said
respondents by way of complaint U.L.Ps. and after so taking into consideration
the said aspect, to decide whether the said respondents were entitled to file the
Appeals before it.
7) The learned counsel for the parties make a statement that they would
appear before the College Tribunal on 11th July, 2011. On remand the College
Tribunal to decide the Appeals as expeditiously as possible and within a period
of four months from 11th July, 2011.
8) Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with parties to
bear their own costs.
JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:21:39 :::