Rangrao Shamrao Korane Vs the Registrar, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital and Ors.

¶1

[1]

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3283 OF 2006.

¶4

 Rangarao Shamrao Korane ..Petitioner
 V/s
 Registrar, Dr. D.Y.Patil
 Dental College and
 Hospital & Others ..Respondents

¶5

 Mr. Mihir Desai for the petitioner
 Shri R.V. Govilkar for resondent No.3
 Shri Abhay Parab for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
 Shri R.D. Rane, GP for respondent No.4.

¶6

CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE &
 J.H. BHATIA, JJ.

¶7

DATE : 1ST DECEMBER, 2006.

¶8

 P.C.

¶9

 . Heard Mr. Mihir Desai, the learned Counsel for

¶10

 the petitioner, Mr.Govilkar for respondent No.3 Mr.
 Rane, the learned GP for respondent, State of
 Maharashtra and Mr. Abhay Parab for respondent Nos. 1
 and 2. Rule. The Respondents waive service. The

¶11

 petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith

¶12

 2. The petitioner came to be employed as an
 Attendant under respondent No.1 Dental College on
 1/9/1992. It appears that he was removed from service
 on or about 28/9/2001 and therefore, he had approached

¶13

[2]

¶14

 the Labour Court at Thane by filing complaint (ULP) No.
 430/2001 under Section 21A of the MRTU and PULP Act,
 1971. The respondent employer filed an application at
 Exh. C-2 in the said complaint taking objection to the
 jurisdiction of the Labour Court, in view of the
 alternative remedy of appeal under the Maharashtra
 Universities Act, 1994. This application filed by
 employer was allowed and the Labour Court by its order
 dated 3/1/2003 held that it had no jurisdiction to try
 and entertain the complaint.

¶15

 3. The petitioner then approached the Grievance
 Committee of the Maharashtra Health University and the
 Grievance Committee by its order dated 20/10/2003
 informed the respondent No.1 College that its action of
 terminating the petitioner from service was not proper
 and that he was required to be reinstated. The college
 was further directed to submit compliance report within
 15 days to the University. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2
 did not respond, perhaps because the college became
 deemed university from 20th June, 2002. The respondent
 No.1 College become part of the Deemed University.

¶16

 4. Mr. Desai has placed before us a copy of the

¶17

[3]

¶18

 proposed amendment to be carried out in the petition
 memo and the same is hereby allowed. The petition memo
 be amended within one week.

¶19

 5. As on 28/9/2001 when the petitioner was removed
 from service, the respondent No.1 College was affiliated
 to the Maharashtra Health University and therefore, the
 provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994
 were not applicable to it. The remedy of appeal under
 the Maharashtra Universities act, 1994 was not available
 to the petitioner. In addition on 3/1/2003 when the
 complaint was dismissed by the Labour Court, the
 respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had become a Deemed University
 and therefore, the respondent No.1 College ceased to be
 Affiliated to the Maharashtra Health University from
 June, 2002. Under these circumstances, the order of the
 Grievance Committee of the Maharashtra Health University
 passed on 20/10/2003 also becomes ineffective. The
 petitioner cannot be remediless, more so, he was working
 as an attendant in a private Dental College. It is well
 recognised now that running of such unaided Colleges is
 an occupation and therefore, undoubtedly the same
 College would be an Industry within the meaning of
 Section 2 (J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and

¶20

[4]

¶21

 therefore he would be a workman within the meaning of
 Section 2(s) of the said act. The Labour Court thus,
 wrongly recorded its conclusion that the petitioner had
 the remedy of appeal under the Maharashtra Universities
 Act, 1994 or to approach the Grievance Committee of the
 Maharashtra Health University. The view taken by the
 Labour Court in its order dated 3/1/2003,is
 unsustainable in law.

¶22

 6. The said order is hereby quashed and set aside
 and Complaint (ULP) No. 430/2001 is hereby restored to
 the file of the 1st Labour Court, Thane. It is directed
 that the said complaint be heard and decided on its own
 merits and as expeditiously as possible and preferably
 before 30th June, 2007. The petition is partly allowed
 and Rule is made absolute in terms of the above
 directions. No costs.

¶23

 7. Writ to go the respondents and the Labour Court
 forthwith.

¶24

[5]

¶25

(J.H. BHATIA, J.) ( B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)

Rangrao Shamrao Korane v. the Registrar, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangrao Shamrao Korane v. the Registrar, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhakar Shankar Deshpande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Teke Uday Khandu Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anita @ Vanita Shantaram More Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sunil Kansal Vs Standard Chartered Bank and Ors.

Bhauso Shankar Kamale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Halubai Mahadu @ Mahadeo Meher Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.