Amrutvahini College Of Engineering v. President, Grievance Committee University Poona

*1* 40.wp.1913.97

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1913 OF 1997 AMRUTVAHINI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ANOTHER.

VERSUS

PRESIDENT, GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE UNIVERSITY POONA AND OTHERS.

...

Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Dhorde R.N., Senior Advocate a/w Shri S.K.Shinde and Shri V.R.Dhorde.

Advocate for Respondent 2 : Shri V.P.Golewar h/f Shri A.R.Joshi. AGP for Respondents 3 and 4 : Shri S.N.Kendre. ...

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATE :- 27th February, 2017 Per Court:

Shri Dhorde, learned Senior Advocate along with Shri Shinde, learned Advocate for the Petitioner College, submit on instructions from Mr.S.P.Warpe, Personnel In-Charge of the Petitioner Engineering College that the Petitioner desires to withdraw this Writ Petition so as to reconcile as to what benefits have actually been extended to the employees concerned and more so in the light of the decision of the Industrial Court dated 30.09.1998 in Complaint (ULP) No.31/1995 and group of ULP Complaints as well as any other proceedings in that regard. It is prayed that if any further grievance of the Petitioner survives, the Petitioner would resort to appropriate legal remedies as may be available in law.

*2* 40.wp.1913.97 The learned Advocate for Respondent No.2/ University submits that he has no objection for such withdrawal. Considering the above statement, this Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. Needless to state, in the event the Petitioner has any grievance surviving, they would be at liberty to resort to appropriate legal remedies. So also, in the event, any disputed aspect as regards dues of workmen/ employees of the Petitioner Organization survives, such employees would be at liberty to resort to appropriate legal remedies either under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 or under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the case may be, keeping in view that the disputed questions with regard to the service benefits can be adjudicated upon by the Courts under these Acts and may not be within the competence of the Grievance Redressal Committee.

Rule is discharged.

kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)