Vidyalankar Institute of Technology Vs Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Union

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶2

 WRIT PETITION NO.1203 OF 2008

¶3

 Vidyalankar Institute of
 Technology and Anr. ...Petitioners
 Versus
 Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Union ...Respondents

¶4

 Mr Shekhar Naphade, Sr Advocate alongwith Mr S.M.Naik
 for the Petitioners.

¶5

 Mr S. Pathak for the Respondents.

¶6

CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARIJ.
DATE : 09th June, 2008

¶7

P.C.

¶8

 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.

¶9

 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.

¶10

:2:

¶11

 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

¶12

 Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 alone has
 jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

¶13

 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.

¶14

 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.

¶15

 6. On the other hand it is contended that the
 impugned order is interlocutory and there is no reason

¶16

:3:

¶17

 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.

¶18

 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.

¶19

 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

¶20

:4:

¶21

 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.

¶22

:5:

¶23

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)

Vidyalankar Institute of Technology v. Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Union

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidyalankar Institute of Technology v. Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Union

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cfl Aromas India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ---------------------------------------------

Shri Brihad Bhartiya Samaj Vs

Precision Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs ---------------------------------------------

Bhartiya Kamgar Sena Vs M/S. Eastern International Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

M/S. Matra Realty Ltd. Vs the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai

Industrial Development Bank of India Vs O.L.of Bharat Pipes and Fittings Ltd.