Manish Pitale DECISION
Manish Pitale, J.
1. The petitioner-Trust has challenged concurrent orders passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court by filing the present writ petition. It is claimed that the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages granted in favour of respondent No. 1 deserves to be set aside. The main grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner-Trust is that respondent No. 1, who was working as hostel superintendent for students could not be said to be a workman and that, therefore, the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1971"), before the Labour Court were without jurisdiction. The petitioner challenged the impugned orders on their merits also.
2. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as hostel superintendent by appointment order dated 23/08/1996 with effect from 02/09/1996. Respondent No. 1 continued to work on the said post till the order of termination of service was issued by the petitioner-trust on 10/10/2011. Although, initially the appointment of respondent No. 1 was approved for limited periods, subject to decision in a litigation initiated by one Mr. R.A. Bavane against the petitioner-trust, later on by order of approval dated 21/10/2005 issued by respondent No. 2-District Social Welfare Officer, the service of respondent No. 1 was approved without any such rider. As noted above, the service of respondent No. 1 was terminated by order dated 10/10/2011 by the petitioner-trust, on the ground that the litigation initiated by the said Mr. Bavane had culminated in a compromise between the petitioner and the said person, due to which he was required to be reinstated, necessitating termination of service of respondent No. 1. The said Mr. Bavane has filed an application for intervention in the present writ petition.
3. Aggrieved by the said order of termination of service dated 10/10/2011, respondent No. 1 filed complaint under section 28 of the Act of 1971 before the Labour Court at Wardha, contending that though his designation was hostel superintendent, he had no supervisory powers over other employees and that he was a workman. It was further contended that the act of the petitioner-trust in terminating the service of respondent No. 1 was illegal and unsustainable, thereby showing that the petitioner-trust had indulged in unfair labour practice. The petitioner-trust opposed the said contention raised on behalf of respondent No. 1 and contended that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings. By judgment and order dated 28/02/2014, the Labour Court allowed the complaint filed by respondent No. 1, thereby quashing and setting aside the order of termination of service dated 10/10/2011 and further granted relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The Labour Court did not frame any issue as regards the maintainability of the complaint on the question as to whether respondent No. 1 could be said to be a 'workman'.
4. Aggrieved by the said order of the Labour Court, the petitioner filed revision application before the Industrial Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. By judgment and order dated 08/03/2016, the Industrial Court dismissed the revision, thereby confirming the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court. There was no issue regarding status of respondent No. 1 as a 'workman' discussed in the judgment and order of the Industrial Court, although a contention was raised on behalf of the petitioner-trust that respondent No. 1 had a remedy of filing appeal before the appropriate authority, as the school run by the petitioner-trust was for deaf and dumb children and it was also contended that an a........