2010 (2) TMI 1052 - SC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction of Grievance Committee - Held that - Appeal allowed. The Hon ble High Court possibly fell into an error by holding that the Grievance Committee has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints made by 5th and 6th respondent since they are not approved teachers.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Grievance Committee under Section 53 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998.
2. Definition and scope of "teachers" under Section 2(35) of the said Act.
3. Application of the principle of ejusdem generis in interpreting the definition of "teachers."

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Grievance Committee under Section 53 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998:

The primary contention was whether the Grievance Committee had the jurisdiction to entertain complaints from unapproved teachers. The High Court had ruled that the Grievance Committee did not have such jurisdiction, as the complainants were not approved teachers. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Grievance Committee's jurisdiction extended to all teachers, including unapproved ones, as per the combined reading of Section 2(35) and Section 53 of the Act. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the Grievance Committee was to provide an effective grievance redressal forum to all teachers and employees, ensuring their protection against any form of harassment at the workplace.

2. Definition and scope of "teachers" under Section 2(35) of the said Act:

The definition of "teachers" under Section 2(35) was crucial in determining the jurisdiction of the Grievance Committee. The Supreme Court noted that the definition included not only full-time approved Demonstrators, Tutors, Assistant Lecturers, Lecturers, etc., but also "other persons teaching or giving instructions on a full-time basis in affiliated colleges or approved institutions in the university." The Court observed that this definition was broad enough to encompass unapproved teachers, thereby granting them access to the grievance redressal mechanism.

3. Application of the principle of ejusdem generis in interpreting the definition of "teachers":

The High Court had applied the principle of ejusdem generis, concluding that the term "teachers" should be restricted to approved teachers. The Supreme Court, however, found this application erroneous. The principle of ejusdem generis, which restricts the meaning of general words by their specific context, was deemed inapplicable here due to the clear legislative intent to include a broader category of teachers. The Court highlighted that the definition in Section 2(35) had two parts: one dealing with enumerated categories of approved teachers and the other with a broader category of persons teaching on a full-time basis. The use of "and other" indicated a different category, making the principle of ejusdem generis unsuitable for this context.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It clarified that the Grievance Committee had the jurisdiction to entertain complaints from unapproved teachers and that the definition of "teachers" under Section 2(35) included a broader category of individuals teaching on a full-time basis. The Court directed the High Court to dispose of the writ petition in light of these observations, maintaining the reinstatement of the complainants and ensuring their continuity in service as per the provisions of the University Acts and Statutes. Parties were left to bear their own costs.