The respondent workman was engaged by the petitioner college as daily wager casual labourer and he was offered some work for some days in some years.It is the case of the petitioner that no work was offered to him subsequently. The petitioner's further contention was that the respondent was paid wages as a daily rated worker.
The respondent workman instituted recovery application No.565 of1990 before the Labour Court,Surat under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 ('the Act') for a relief that he was entitled to wages on the basis of equal pay for equal work and claimed recovery of Rs. 1,21,524/.The said application was contested. One of contentions raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner is affiliated to South Gujarat University and,therefore, the Labour court has no jurisdiction to grant any relief in view of provisions of Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Service Tribunal Act,1982.
Application ,Ex.6 was given by the petitioner for hearing issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. After hearing the parties, the Labour court rejected the application holding that it was not expedient to try the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.Hence,this petition.
It appears from the impugned order of the Labour court dated 24.11.19956 that it has rejected the applicatio,Ex.6 submitted by the petitioner-college holding that there was no fit case for hearing the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. However, while passing the impugned order,some observations are made in para 6 relying upon which it is contended that the Labour court has taken the view that the Labour court has jurisdiction.
In light of the facts and circumstances and the plain tenor of the impugned order, it cannot be contended that issue of jurisdiction is already decided. However,it is clarified that the Labour court shall decide the issue of jurisdiction alongwith other issues while deciding the Recovery Application on merits in accordance with law.
It is jointly contended that issue of jurisdiction is not concluded.In the circumstances,it would be open for the petitioner to agitate the grievance about maintainability of the proceedings before the Labour court.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and directions, this petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Notice is discharged.
corrected (J.N.Bhatt,J.)