Beena Kamalavijayan vs Hyderabad Sind National Collegiate Board through Its Secretary — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Beena Kamalavijayan vs Hyderabad Sind National Collegiate Board through Its Secretary — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to avail of the aforesaid remedy (Grievance Committee under Section 79 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act); all contentions of the litigating parties kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to encashment of 91 days' leave. +5 more

Court's answer

The Petitioner, having retired from employment, has raised a dispute pertaining to services rendered with the Respondent Management; such a dispute touching her employment/service benefits can be looked into by the Grievance Committee in the absence of a specific exclusion provision under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act.

Ratio / Principle

Exercising the Writ jurisdiction of the High Court to recover unpaid amounts from a private employer is a matter of circumspection.

Key takeaways

Following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) Ltd. Kakinada v/s. M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. ([AIR 2020 SC 2819]), disputed questions should not be gone into by the High Court; accordingly this court declines to adjudicate the enumerated disputed attendance/absence issues.ratio¶31
Section 79 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act permits an employee to raise a dispute not falling within the jurisdiction of the University Tribunal before the Grievance Committee.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ghuge & Bhobe, JJ.; 4 February 2025) disposed of Writ Petition No. 655 of 2024 filed by Beena Kamalavijayan against Hyderabad Sind National Collegiate Board & Ors. claiming encashment of 91 days' leave. The court held that recovery of unpaid amounts from a private employer by exercising the High Court's Writ jurisdiction is a matter of circumspection, and that disputed questions — alleged 330-day absence, work-from-home entitlement during the COVID-19 lockdown, once-a-week physical attendance directions, and response to the warning letter of 30 March 2021 — should not be gone into by the High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's law in Assistant Commissioner (CT) Ltd. Kakinada v/s. M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., [AIR 2020 SC 2819]. Noting that Section 79 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act permits an employee to raise, before the Grievance Committee, a dispute not falling within the University Tribunal's jurisdiction, and that the retired Petitioner's service-benefit dispute can be so looked into absent a specific exclusion provision, the court disposed of the petition with liberty to pursue that remedy, keeping all contentions open.

Digitally signed by ARUNA ARUNA SANDEEP SANDEEP TALWALKAR TALWALKAR Date: 17.WP655.2024.odt 2025.02.06 20:03:47 +0530

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 655 OF 2024

Beena Kamalavijayan. … Petitioner Versus Hyderabad Sind National Collegiate Board & Ors. … Respondents.

Mr. C.R.Sadasivan, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Aseem Naphade, a/w. Ms. Riya Thakkar i/b. Mr. Tushar Goradia, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. Mohit Jadhav, Addl. G.P. with Mr. Prashant Kamble, AGP for Respondent No. 3.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : 4^th FEBRUARY, 2025

P.C. :

The issue is as regards whether the Petitioner is entitled for 91 days leave encashment.

We have considered the submissions of the learned

Advocates appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondent Management and the learned AGP on behalf of the State Respondent

Nos. 3 and 4.

1

Talwalkar

17.WP655.2024.odt

We find that there are several disputed issues arising out of the claim of the Petitioner and the stand of the Management, which can be summarized as under :

(a) Whether the Petitioner was absent from duties for a period of 330 days ?

(b) Whether the Petitioner was entitled to work from home during the COVID Pandemic Lock down ?

(c) Whether the directions of the Management that each employee should mark physical attendance in the college, only once in a week during the Lock down ?

(d) Whether the Petitioner did not mark her presence as directed by the Management resulting in purported absence of 330 days ?

(e) Whether the Petitioner had responded to the specific warning letter dated 30^th March, 2021 calling upon her to mark her presence at least once in a week ?

Considering the above, the issue as regards recovery of

unpaid amounts from the private employer by exercising Writ jurisdiction of the High Court. is a matter of circumspection. The

2

Talwalkar

17.WP655.2024.odt

Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down law in Assistant Commissioner (CT) Ltd. Kakinada & Ors. v/s. M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., [AIR 2020 SC 2819], that the disputed questions should not be gone into by the High Court.

We have perused Section 79 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act which permits an employee to raise a dispute not falling within the jurisdiction of the University Tribunal, before the Grievance Committee. The present Petitioner who has retired from the employment, has raised an issue pertaining to services rendered with the Respondent Management and such a dispute touching the employment/service benefits of the Petitioner, can be looked into by the Grievance Committee in the absence of a specific exclusion provision under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off with

liberty to the Petitioner to avail of the aforesaid remedy. All contentions of the litigating parties are kept open.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

3

Talwalkar