Fauja Singh v. The Director of Education

1. As common issue with identical facts arises for consideration in these •writ petitions, theyarebeing decided bythisorder.,;

2. The challenge in these writpetitions is, to the order(s) dated February 15y2017 passed in appeals filed by the petitioners under the provisions of; the Delhi School Education Act, wherein they have challenged the order of, retrenchment passedby the respondent No.2 School.

3. There is no dispute that the respondent No.2, School has paid retrenchment compensation to the petitioners herein. There is also no dispute that the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have been followed. Suffice to state, I have, on May,19, 2017 dismissed ten writ petitions the lead case being W.P.(C) 4335/2017 challenging similar orders of the Delhi School Tribun^ dated February 15,

2017. Forparity of reasons^ Lalso dismiss these writ petitions. The relevant paras of my order dated May 19, 2017 are reproduced asunder:- "XXX^ XXXXXX XXXXXX

2. It is the case ofthepetitioners that they,were working'as Drivers in the respondent No.2 School and their services were terminated on May 31, 2016. They approached the Delhi School Tribunal, which rejected their appeals vide the impugned orderspassedonFebruary 15, 2017. It isnotedfrom the impugned orders, that the case of the respondent No.2 before the Delhi School Tribunal was that it used to provide J transport services to its students. However, the buses usedfor such services were very old and out ofnine (9) buses, permits of two (2) buses had alreadyexpired in2016, and offive (5) buses, were to expire at the end ofthatyear (2016), permit ofone bus • was to expire iri 2017 and the remaining one bus will expire in

2018. It was also the case of the respondent No.2 that it is unviable to have new buses and hence decided not to provide transport services any longer and discontinued the same on May'10,2016.

3. It was the School's case that it had followed the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and " issued the retrenchment letter dated May 31, 2016 and ^ transferred arriounts to the savings bank Accounts of the ^ ^petitioners towards full and final dues that included retrenchment compensation, salaryfor the month ofMay 2016, three months notice pay in lieu of notice period, gratuity, and, leave encashment. The Tribunal rejected the appeals by holding that the petitioners herein can be retrenchedfollowing theprovisions ofSection 25F ofID Act. There is a conclusion by the Tribunal that the learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any flaw in the retrenchment order/letter • \ dated May 31, 2016. In other words, the respondent No.2 School has fully followed the provisions ofSection 25F ofthe ID Act:

4. The only plea urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents have not complied with the provisions ofSection 25 F(c),which reads as under "(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government[orsuch authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]."

5. He states, that it was required for the School to give notice to the appropriate Government in aparticularformat.

6. On a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether such aplea was taken before the Tribunal in the manner now urged by him, the answer is in the negative. He also states that theplea ispurelyalegal issue and can be considered by the Court in these WritProceedings. Iam unable to agree with the only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, inasmuch as there was no plea before the Tribunal in the manner it has been urged by the learned counsel before me. The ground with regard to Section 25F was in thefollowing manner "because the respondent Nq.[2] retrenched the appellant under Section 25(f) ofID Act but appellant come under Section 2(h), 8(2) and 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1972". V'

7. I note, that in reply to the Appeal before the Delhi School ' Tribunal, the School respondent No.2 has contended asunder "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ' The respondent No.2 strictly complied with all the requirements in respect of the retrenchment for issuance of the necessary notice to the Appropriate Government.

XXXX XXXX XXXX"

8. There is no rebuttal to this stand of the respondent No.2 in rejoinder wherein thepetitioners have only statedas under.- "That the contents ofpara 7 of the preliminary objection are wrong and denied. However the respondent No.2 with a malafide intention made all the driver including the appellant on the road by retrenchment, they even did notfollow the Rule and Regulation ofDSE Act. " '

9. In view of the aforesaid, it must be held that Section 25F(c) has beenfollowed. 1may also state here on a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioners that whether requirement under Section 25F(a) and Section 25F(b) have been complied with by the respondent No.2, the answer was in the affirmative. In other words, the compensation has been rightly given to thepetitioners withproper notice. Thefollowing are the details of the compensation received by each of the S.NO. W.P.(C) DATE OF retrenchment/termination COMPENSATION

1. 4308/2017 May 31, 2016 Rs.9,85,349/-