Rampal Singh v. Director of Education

1. As common issue with identical facts arises for consideration in these writ petitions, they are being decided by this order.

2. It is the case of the petitioners 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 orders passed on February 15, 2017. It is noted from the impugned orders, that the case of the respondent No.2 before the Delhi School Tribunal was that it used to provide transport services to its students. However, the buses used for such services were very old and out of nine (9) buses, permits of two (2) buses had already expired in 2016, and of five (5) buses, were to expire at theendof thatyear (2016), permit of one buswas to expire in 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 discontinuedthe 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 amounts to the savings bank Accounts of the petitioners towards full and final dues that included retrenchment compensation, salary for the month of May 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 retrenched following the provisions of Section 25F of ID 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 of Section 25F of the ID Act.

4. The only plea urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents have not complied with the provisions of Section 25 F(c), which reads as under:- "(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [or such 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 a particular format.

6. On a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether such a plea was taken before the Tribunal in the manner now urged by him, the answer is in the negative. He also states that the plea is purely a legal issue and can be considered by the Court in these Writ Proceedings. I am 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 withregardto Section 25F wasin the following manner "because the respondent No.2 retrenched the appellant under Section 25(f) ofID Act but appellant come under Section 2(h), 8(2) and 10 ofthe Delhi School Education Act, 1972 ".

7. I note, that in reply to the Appeal before the Delhi School Tribunal, rt-:" the School respondent No.2 has contended as under:- 5"

8. "xmr 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 XXXX" There is no rebuttal to this stand of the respondent No.2 in rejoinder wherein the petitioners have only stated as 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 been followed. I may 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 the petitioners with proper notice. The following are the details of the compensation received by each of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions:- S.NO. W.P.(C) DATE OF COMPENSATION RETRENCHMENT/TERMINATION

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

2. 4335/2017 May 31, 2016 Rs. 13,39,883/-

3. 4370/2017 May 31, 2016 Rs.7,21,560/-

4. 4314/2017 May 31, 2016 Rs.5,93,411/-