AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. V. Gangapurwala, J
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, matter is taken up for hearing at admission stage.
Writ Petition Nos.11906 of 2016, 1561 of 2017, 1671 of 2017 and 2014 of 2017 seek implementation of the order passed by the grievance
committee and confirmed by the management council. Whereas, Writ Petition Nos.4779 of 2017 and 4798 of 2017 assailed the order passed by the
management council on the basis of the recommendation of the grievance committee. All these writ petitions are based on similar set of facts and
involved common question of law. To avoid rigmarole they are decided by common judgment. The institution/employer assail the order passed by the
management council on the recommendation of the grievance committee. The employees seek implementation of the order passed by the
management council on the basis of the recommendation of the grievance committee.
The institution has basically assailed the order of the management council based on the recommendation of the grievance committee on the ground
that the orders passed by the management council and the grievance committee cannot be enforced under law. It does not have a binding force.
Mr. Khandare, learned counsel for the institution submits that under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, the grievance committee
is constituted. Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 never intended to confer adjudicatory powers on the committee. The grievance
committee under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act is not empowered to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties and render the
decision as adjudicatory process is not contemplated. The grievance committee is supposed to settle the grievances and if the parties to dispute arrive
at amicable settlement, then only grievance committee can make recommendation to that effect to the management council. If no settlement is arrived
at, the orders cannot be passed by the grievance committee. The word settlement in Section 57 of Maharashtra Universities Act cannot be read as
having an adjudicatory power. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of State of Punjab and Others Versus Phulan
Rani and Another reported in (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 555 and in a case of State of Punjab and Others Versus Ganpat Raj reported in (2006) 8
Supreme Court Cases 364 so also in a case of State of Punjab and Others Versus Jalour Singh and Others reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases
660.
The learned counsel submits that the grievance committee as provided and constituted under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994,
is not a committee of Appeal and invested with power of hearing of Appeals and committee is not a Tribunal constituted under the Universities Act.
Under the scheme of the Act, there cannot be two Tribunals for adjudication of the disputes and therefore, the grievance committee cannot make any
decision by usurping quasi judicial powers. The decision rendered by the committee is without authority of law and outside the purview and scope of
the provision of Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act. The same cannot be enforced. It deserves to be set aside.
The learned counsel further submits that the respondent no.1 in the petition filed by the petitioner was continuously absent from the duties without
leave from 2/3.4.2013 to 30.06.2013. They were absent without leave and permission from the Principal. The proposal made to submit leave
application for the said period was not accepted by the respondents/employees. The dispute involved in the present matter is only to that extent. The
respondent no.1 in both the petitions filed by the institution approached the grievance committee. The learned counsel submits that the complaints filed
by the respondents/employees were factually incorrect. The respondent no.1 in both the petitions filed by the institution voluntarily abstained from the
duties and they were habituated to that effect. Their behaviour was arrogant with the Principal and others. Indiscipline approach was the modus of the
respondents/employees. The respondents/employees were absent from 2/3.04.2013 to 30.06.2013. They did not submit any leave application. The
work of University examination as Chief Superintendent for the center was entrusted to Dr. P. S. Waghmare, respondent no.1 in Writ Petition
No.4779 of 2017. However, without notice he abruptly remained absent, thereby the work of examination was totally disturbed and at the eleventh
hour the work was required to be entrusted to another person. The absenteeism of said Mr. Waghmare was time to time informed to the Joint
Director of Higher Education, B.C.U.D., Controller of Examination, Registrar of University and Vice Chancellor. He was not residing at the head
quarter. All these aspects are not considered. The observation of the grievance committee that the salary from the 01.07.2013 was paid and therefore
he was present in the college from 01.07.2013 is irrelevant for resolving the dispute, so also the respondent no.1 in Writ Petition No.4798 of 2017 Mr.
Kadam was absent. His absence was also communicated to the authorities. He did not submit leave application. He was relieved on 23.03.2013 from
duties for attending practical examination to be held during 24.03.2013 to 31.03.2013. He was supposed to report to the duty on 01.04.2013. He signed
the register though he was relieved to attend practical examination and he was on duty leave. He was given a letter that he left the examination half
way and also was asked to submit joining report which he refused to accept. He since then did not attend college. The grievance committee made
some irrelevant observation not relating to the issue involved. He was also not residing at the head quarter. The said decision deserves to be set aside.
The learned counsel for the petitioner/employees supports the order and submits that the grievance committee is constituted under the statute and
the order of the management council on the basis of the recommendatio9n of the grievance committee is final. The same is enforceable. The learned
counsel relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Wamanrao Gangaram Jagtap Versus Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Marathwada University and Ors.
dated December 3, 2013. According to the learned counsel the institution was harassing the petitioners. The petitioners approached the grievance
committee in view of the liberty granted by the High Court in the petitioner filed by them. The committee was also constituted to enquire into the
grievances made by the petitioners/employees.
The report of the committee substantiates the case of the petitioners and the same has been rightly considered. The employer is bound to implement
the orders of the committee.
We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
Before we advert to the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant
provision. Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994:
Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994
“1. ...................
...................
“57. (1) There shall be a grievances committee in each university to deal with the grievances of the teachers and other employees of the university,
colleges, institutions and recognised institutions and to hear and settle grievances as far as may practicable within six months, and the committee shall
make a report to the Management Council.
(2) It shall be lawful for the grievances committee to entertain and consider grievances or complaints which are not within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal and report to the Management Council to take such action as it deems fit and the decisions of the Management Council on such reports shall
be final.
(3) The Grievances Committee shall consist of the following members, namely:Â
(a) The ProÂViceÂChancellor, where there is no ProÂViceÂChancellor, a member of the Management Council nominated by the Management
Council...................................Chairman,
(b) 2[Two] members of the Management Council nominated by the Management Council from amongst themselves [one of them belonging to the
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or DeÂnotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) /Nomadic Tribes or Other Backward Classes, by
rotation]......................Members;
1[(ba) two members of the Senate nominated by the members of the Senate, from amongst themselves, one of them being the woman representative
of the management and one shall be a teacher;
(bb) two members, nominated by the members of Academic Council, from amongst themselves, one of them being the principal and one shall be a
teacher.
(c) The Registrar...............MemberÂSecretary.â€
The Apex Court in a case of State of Punjab and Others Versus Phulan Rani and Another (supra), in a
case of State of Punjab and Others Versus Ganpat Raj (supra) and in a case of State of Punjab and Others Versus Jalour Singh and Others (supra)
relied by the learned counsel for employer interpreted the meaning of term 'settlement' visÂa vis Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act.
The Apex Court observed that 'settlement' is termination of legal proceedings by mutual consent. In subÂsection 3 of Section 20 of the Legal Services
Authority Act it is observed that where any case referred to a Lok Adalat under subÂsection
(1) or where a reference has been made to it under subÂsection (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a
compromise or settlement between the parties. It is in that context the Apex Court observed that the settlement is termination of legal proceedings by
mutual consent. The Apex Court in a case of Bimal Kumar and Another Versus Shakuntala Debi and Others reported in (2012) 3 Supreme Court
Cases 548 observed that the term 'compromise' essentially means settlement of differences by mutual consent.
In the present case we are concerned with the phrase “to hear and settle grievancesâ€. The phrase 'settle grievances' has varied canotation
depending upon the context. The phrase “to settle grievances†would not have restricted meaning to settle by consensus of the parties. The
settlement in Lok Adalat would mean the settlement by consent of parties. However the settlement by arbitration would mean the process by which
an arbitrator appointed by parties or by the Court adjudicates the disputes between the parties to the Suit and passes an Award as has been observed
by the Apex Court in a Case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344.
Under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 the grievance committee is constituted in each university to deal with the grievances
of the teachers and other employees of the university, colleges, institutions to hear and settle the grievances and to make a report to the Management
Council. After hearing the parties the grievance committee does not take a final decision, but, only submits a report to the Management Council and
based on the report the Management Council takes the decision. The decision of the Management Council on the report of the grievance committee is
final as per subÂsection 2 of Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.
The grievance committee under Section 57 of the Act can entertain and consider only those grievances or complaints which are not within the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Act. The Tribunal is constituted under the Act of 1994 to deal with the aspect of the dismissal,
removal or reduction in rank of an employee at the hands of University or Management Council. For addressing the grievances of the employees other
than the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, the statute has provided for constitution of grievance committee. The grievance committee and the
Management Council is an in house mechanism provided by the statute for the redressal of the grievances of the employees. The connotation “to
hear and settle grievances†cannot be read in narrow compass as is sought to be agitated by the learned counsel for the Institution. More over it is
not the grievance committee that takes a final decision. It only submits report and on the basis of the report submitted the Management Council takes
the final decision. The decision of the Management Council is made final. As finality is attached to the decision of the Management Council, the same
would be binding on the parties.
More over the grievance committee is constituted not under the executive instructions, but is a creature of statute. The powers are bestowed on
the grievance committee and the Management Council under the statute. The statute has made the decision of the Management Council on the report
of the grievance committee final. As finality is attached to the decision given, the same would be binding on the parties.
The similar provision for constitution of grievance committee and empowering Management Council to take final decision upon report of the
grievance committee as provided under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 also appears in Maharashtra University ofÂ
Health Sciences Act, 1998. Section 53 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 is pari materia to Section 57 of the
Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. Section 53 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 reads thus:
“(1) There shall be a Grievances Committee in the University to deal with the grievances of teachers and other employees of the University,
Colleges, institutions and recognised institutions and to hear and settle grievances as far as may be practicable within six months, and the committee
shall make a report to the Management Council.
(2) It shall be lawful for the Grievances Committee to entertain and consider grievances or complaints and report to the Management Council for
taking such action as it deems fit and the decisions of the Management Council on such report shall be final.
(3) the Grievances Committee shall consist of the following members, namely:
(a) The ProÂViceÂChancellor ÂChairperson
(b) Four members of the Management Council nominated by the Management Council from amongst themselves  Members;
 MemberÂSecretary (4) The Registrar shall not have a right to vote.â€
Placing both the provisions viz. Section 53 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 and Section 57 of the
Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 in juxtaposition it is clear that provisions are similar and pari materia. The Apex Court in a
case of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and others V/s. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal & Others in Civil Appeal No.2050 of 2010
considered the scope of
Section 53 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998. The Division Bench of the High Court had observed that the forum of the
grievance committee is not available to the teachers whose services are not approved. The Apex Court set aside theÂ
judgment of Division Bench of the High Court and under judgment and order dated 25.02.2010 observed thus:
“36. The purpose of setting up the Grievance Committee under Section 53 of the Act is to provide an effective grievance redressal forum to
teachers and other employees. Any interpretation of 'teachers' under Section 2(35) of the Act which denies the persons covered under Section 2(35)
an access to the said forum completely nullifies the dominant purpose of creating such a forum. It goes without saying that unapproved teachers need
the protection of this forum more than the approved teachers. By creating such a forum the University virtually exercised its authority and jurisdiction
as a locoÂparentis over teachersÂboth approved and unapproved and who are working in various colleges affiliated with it. The idea is to give such
teachers and employees a protection against any kind of harassment which they might receive in their work place. The creation of such a forum is in
tune with protecting the 'dignity of the individual' which is one of the core constitutional concepts.â€
In light of the above, the institutions cannot contend that they are not bound to obey and follow the decision of the Management Council.
On factual matrix also it would appear that an enquiry committee was constituted. The enquiry committee has given detail report. The one
member committee constituted has submitted the report in favour of the employees stating that they were present. The grievance committee
considered the report of the enquiry committee. After considering the various documents on record, the grievance committee has submitted the report.
On the basis of the report of the grievance committee, the Management Council has taken a decision giving direction to the institution. This Court
would not sit as an Appellate Authority over the report of the enquiry committee and the decision taken by the Management Council based on the
report of the grievance committee. The decision making process has been properly adhered to. The institution and the employees were heard before
the grievance committee.
In light of the above the Writ Petitions bearing Nos.4779 of 2017 and 4798 of 2017 filed by the institution are dismissed. The Writ Petitions bearing
Nos. 11906 of 2016, 1561 of 2017, 1671 of 2017 and 2014 of 2017 filed by the employees stand allowed and the institution shall implement the decision
of the Management Council based on the recommendation of the grievance committee as prayed in the writ petitions filed by the employees within six
(06) weeks. Rule made absolute in Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 11906 of 2016, 1561 of 2017, 1671 of 2017 and 2014 of 2017 in above terms and Rule
is discharged in Writ Petitions Nos.4779 of 2017 and 4798 of 2017.
Â