JUDGMENT : B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manvendra Dixit, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 & 2. 2. The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the reference order dated 26.6.2014 whereby the dispute relating to the termination of service of the respondent no. 3 who has claimed to be an employee of the petitioner's institution has been referred to the Labour Court. 3. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reference order is mechanical and does not show any application of mind by the State. 4. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived for the reason that reference order even though may be in a printed form clearly mentions the name of the respondent no. 3 and his status in the petitioner's institution and also refers to the order dated 26.08.2013 whereby his services have been terminated/dispensed with and raised a query as to whether such termination order or dispensation of service of respondent no. 3 with effect from 26.08.2013 is valid or not and if not, what relief the respondent no. 3 is entitled to. 5. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner institution being a minority institution does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court in view of the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. 6. Sri Manvendra Dixit, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 & 2 has placed before the Court a judgment of the Supreme Court Christian Medical College Hospital Employees Union and another v. Christian Medical College Vellore Association and others reported in, (1988) AIR SC 37. In para 18 of the said judgment, it has been clearly stated by the Supreme Court that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are applicable to minority educational institutions and the same would not be violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Para 18 of the said judgment reads as under : "18. In para 18 of the said judgment, it has been clearly stated by the Supreme Court that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are applicable to minority educational institutions and the same would not be violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Para 18 of the said judgment reads as under : "18. In view of the observations of this Court in All Saints High Schools case, (1980) AIR SC 1042 (supra), Frank Anthony Public Schools case, (1987) AIR SC 311 (supra) and Y. Theclamms case, (1987) AIR SC 1210 (supra) it has to be held that the provisions of the Act which provide for the reference of an industrial dispute to an Industrial Tribunal or a Labour Court for a decision in accordance with judicial principles have to be declared as not being violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. It has to be borne in mind that these provisions have been conceived and enacted in accordance with the principles accepted by the International Labour Organisation and the United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organisation. The International Convenent on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 which is a basic document declaring certain specific human rights in addition to proclaiming the right to work as a human right treats equitable conditions of work, prohibition of forced labour, provision for adequate remuneration, the right to a limitation of work hours, to rest and leisure, the right to form and join trade unions of ones' choice, the right to strike etc. also as human rights. The Preamble of our Constitution says that our country is a socialist republic. Article 41 of the Constitution provides that the State shall make effective provision for securing right to work. Article 42 of the Constitution provides that the State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief. Article 43 of the Constitution states that the State shall endeavour to secure by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way to all workers agricultural, industrial or otherwise work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities. These rights which are enforced through the several pieces of labour legislation in India have got to be applied to every workman irrespective of the character of the management. These rights which are enforced through the several pieces of labour legislation in India have got to be applied to every workman irrespective of the character of the management. Even the management of a minority educational institution has got to respect these rights and implement them. Implementation of these rights involves the obedience to several labour laws including the Act which is under consideration in this case which are brought into force in the country. Due obedience to those laws would assist in the smooth working of the educational institutions and would facilitate proper administration of such educational institutions. If such laws are made inapplicable to minority educational institutions, there is every likelihood of such institutions being subjected to maladministration. Merely because an impartial tribunal is entrusted with the duty of resolving disputes relating to employment, unemployment, security of work and other conditions of workmen it cannot be said that the right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India is violated. If a creditor of a minority educational institution or a contractor who has built the building of such institution is permitted to file a suit for recovery of the money or damages as the case may be due to him against such institution and to bring the properties of such institution to sale to realise the decretal amount due under the decree passed in such suit is Article 30(1) violated Certainly not. Similarly the right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution is not violated, if a minority school is ordered to be closed when an epidemic breaks out in the neighbourhood, if a minority school building is ordered to be pulled down when it is constructed contrary to town planning law or if a decree for possession is passed in favour of the true owner of the land when a school is built on a land which is not owned by the management of a minority school. In the same way if a dispute is raised by an employee against the management of a minority educational institution such dispute will have necessarily to be resolved by providing appropriate machinery for that purpose. Laws are now passed by all the civilised countries providing for such a machinery. The Act with which we are concerned in this case is an Act which has been brought into force for resolving such industrial disputes. Laws are now passed by all the civilised countries providing for such a machinery. The Act with which we are concerned in this case is an Act which has been brought into force for resolving such industrial disputes. Sections 10, 11-A, 12 and 33 of the Act cannot, therefore, be construed as interfering with the right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Similarly, section 9-A of the Act, which requires the management to issue a notice in accordance with the said provision in order to make changes in the conditions of service which may include changes in the hours of work, leave rules, introduction of new rules of discipline etc., cannot be considered as violative of the right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The High Court was in error in thinking that the power of the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court under the Act was un-canalised, unguided and unlimited and in thinking that the said power was equivalent to the power of the Vice Chancellor or any other officer nominated by him functioning under the Gujarat University Act, 1949 which was the subject matter of decision in the St. Xaviers College case, (1974) AIR SC 1389 (supra). Accordingly we are of the view that the provisions of sections 9A, 10, llA, 12 and 33 of the Act are applicable to the minority educational institutions like the Christian Medical College and hospital at Vellore also" 7. Therefore, in the light of the observations made above and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Christian Medical College Hospital Employees' Union (Supra), I am of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the reference made by the State Government to the Labour Court and that the reference relating to a minority institution i.e. the petitioner would be maintainable before the Labour Court. 8. The writ petition is dismissed.