Madhya Pradesh High Court
MP/5250/2019 of PRESIDENT MAHARISHI VIDYA MANDIR Vs MRS. ANITA SHRIVASTAVA on 16 September 2025
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 3rd OF APRIL, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 4470 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1.
PRESIDENT
MAHARISHI
VIDYA
MANDIR
NATIIONAL OFFICE M.C.E.E CAMPUS BERASIA
ROAD LAMBAKHEDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
NATIONAL OFFICE MAHARISHI VIDYA MANDIR
THR. THE NATIONAL COORDINATOR T.M. AND
T.M.
SIDHI
PROGRAMME,
M.C.E.E.CAMPUS
BERASIA
ROAD
LAMBAKHEDA
(MADHYA
PRADESH)
3.
MAHARISHI VIDYA MANDIR THR. PRINCIPAL
SHAKHA 3, BEHIND NAGAR NIGAM MARKET
ADHARTAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI YOGESH BHATNAGAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
MRS. ANITA SHRIVASTAWA W/O VIJAY SHRIVASTAWA
H.NO. 18 BEHIND STUDIO ROOP REKHA ADARSH
COLONY ADHARTAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE)
MISC. PETITION No. 5250 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1.
PRESIDENT MAHARISHI VIDYA MANDIR THR.
NATIONAL OFFICE MCEE CAMPUS BERASIA
ROAD
LAMBAKHEDA
BHOPAL
(MADHYA
PRADESH)
2.
NATIONAL OFFICE MAHARISHI VIDYA MANDIR
THROUGH THE NATIONAL COORDINATOR T.M.
Page 1 of 3
ANDT.M. SIDHI PROGRAMME M.C.E.E.CAMPUS
BERASIA
ROAD
LAMBAKHEDA
(MADHYA
PRADESH)
3.
MAHARISHI
VIDYA
MANDIR
THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SHAKHA -3 BEHIND NAGAR NIGAM
MARKET ADHARTAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI YOGESH BHATNAGAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
MRS. ANITA SHRIVASTAVA W/O VIJAY SHRIVASTAVA
H.NO. 2801/8 NEW ADARSH COLONY ADHARTAL
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE)
These petitions coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging orders dated 13.8.2018 and 11.9.2018 passed by Presiding Officer-Labour Court, Gorakhpur, District Jabalpur.
2. Petitioners have filed an application raising objection regarding maintainability of case for payment of wages on ground of limitation and on ground that respondent does not fall within definition of Workman, therefore, application is not maintainable. Said objection raised by petitioners was taken into consideration and authority took a decision to pass orders on said objection after both the parties were given an opportunity to present their case.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that authority has wrongly approached the issue. In the case of Rekha Bhatia vs. Miss Hill Education Society and others, (1998) 2 MPLJ 598, High Court held that educational institutions are established within definition of Section 1(3)(b) of Minimum
Page 2 of 3
(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE Wages Act, 1936 and appellant therein is a person employed in the establishment therefore, she will fall within definition of workman.
4. Learned counsel for respondent opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted by him that authority has rightly postponed the decision of said issue to be decided after presentation of case by the authorities. Since no order has been passed on merits by the authority, therefore, writ petition is premature and is not maintainable.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Authority has not passed any order on merits of the case. Decision on objection has been postponed till both the parties present their case and were heard on merits. Adjudication on objection will be mixed question of law and facts.
7. Since no order has been passed taking decision on objection, therefore, writ petition filed by the petitioners is premature and is not maintainable.
8. Misc. Petitions, filed by the petitioners, are dismissed.
9. Petitioners will be at liberty to assail order on objections if same is finally decided against them. mms
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…