Dismissed

Muktabai Ambadas Dongre v. the School Administraton Committee Zilla Parishad School Bhilpuri and Others

Bombay HC3 Dec 2018WP/13238/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Industrial Court order remanding complaint to Labour Court noting that issue of whether mid-day meals scheme constitutes industry was not framed nor evidence led. Single judge upheld remand as it was jurisdictional requiring fresh inquiry by Labour Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by affirming the Industrial Court order remanding the matter to the Labour Court with direction to dispose within one year.

Muktabai Ambadas Dongre Vs the School… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Madkar

¶2

1 W.P. No. 13238/2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

15. WRIT PETITION No. 13238 OF 2018

¶5

Muktabai Ambadas Dongre

¶6

 ...Petitioner

¶7

 Versus

¶8

The School Administration Committee,
Z.P. School, Bhilpuri Tal. & Dist. Jalna and others … Respondents

¶9

Mr. V.P. Golewar, Advocate for petitioner

¶10

Coram : N.M. Jamdar, J. Date : 3 December 2018.

¶11

ORAL ORDER :

¶12

1.By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order
passed by the Industrial Court, Jalna, in Revision (ULP) No. 25 of
2017 allowing the revision and setting aside the order passed by the
Labour Court, Jalna, in Complaint (ULP) No. 3 of 2016 dated 24
March 2017 and remanding the proceedings to the Labour Court,
Jalna.

¶13

2.The petitioner has filed the Complaint (ULP) No. 3/2016

¶14

Madkar 2 W.P. No. 13238/2018

¶15

in the Labour Court, Jalna, under Section 28(1) Schedule IV Item
No.1 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The petitioner has
prayed that her termination be quashed and set aside and
respondents i.e. the Zilla Parishad authorities be directed to re-instate
the petitioner in service with continuity and full back wages.

¶16

3.The Labour Court had allowed the complaint by order
dated 24 March 2017. In the Revision, the Industrial Court held
that whether the activity carried out by the respondents-Zilla Parishad
of monitoring the mid-day meals scheme by the State Government,
wherein the petitioner is working as 'cook', could be called as
'industry' was an issue not considered and neither framed by the
Labour Court and, therefore, the matter needs to be remanded.

¶17

4.According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, if
the issue was not framed by the Labour Court, the respondents should
have insisted upon the same and there are various documents which
will show that the scheme can be termed as industry.

¶18

5.The question whether the activity can be termed as
industry will entail inquiry on facts. This issue goes to the root of the

¶19

Madkar 3 W.P. No. 13238/2018

¶20

jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Admittedly, the Labour Court has
not framed the issue and the parties have not led evidence. The
Industrial Court was, therefore, right in holding that in the revisional
jurisdiction it could not decide this question at the first instance and
therefore, the matter was remanded. There is no error of jurisdiction.
The issue indeed is a jurisdictional issue, which needs to be decided
by the Labour Court.

¶21

6. The learned Industrial Court has already directed that the
issues be recast and further evidence be led. The Labour Court will
make an endeavour to dispose of the complaint within a period of one
year from today, if there are no earlier time bound commitments.

¶22

7.All contentions of the parties on the issues so framed and
other issues are kept open.

¶23

8.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶24

 N.M. Jamdar, J.

Muktabai Ambadas Dongre v. the School Administraton Committee Zilla Parishad School Bhilpuri and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muktabai Ambadas Dongre v. the School Administraton Committee Zilla Parishad School Bhilpuri and Others

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

Sanjay Baba Khengat Vs Khandu Motiram Chobhe and Others

Farhatullah Khan Hameed Khan Vs Gitabai Anant Limaye

Dagdu Alias Anna Keru Shinde Vs Pandurang Ganpat Shinde and Others

Tarabai Ananda Phatangre Vs Sahebrao Karbhari Phatangre

Navalkumar Sitaram Bakliwal Vs Nanded Education Society through Its Chairman and Others

Devidas Pundalik Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others