Full Text
Translation output
$-15,16, 18 & 19 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) + W.P.rC^ 12056/2015 &C.M. 32016/2015
SERAZALI Petitioner
Through: Ms. Indrani Ghosh &Ms. Tamali Wad, Advocates i
SERAZALI Petitioner
Through: Ms. Indrani Ghosh &Ms. Tamali Wad, Advocates i
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION &ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Addl. Standing Counsel, Mr. Vikramaditya & Mr. Rajiv Tanwar, Advocates for respondent No.1
Mr. Indu Shekhar, Respondent No.2 in person (ii)+ W.P.rC^ 12058/2015 &C.M. 32019/2015
SANSAR CHAND Petitioner
Through: Ms. Indrani Ghosh &Ms. Tamali Wad, Advocates
Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Addl. Standing Counsel, Mr. Vikramaditya & Mr. Rajiv Tanwar, Advocates for respondent No.1
Mr. Indu Shekhar, Respondent No.2 in person (ii)+ W.P.rC^ 12058/2015 &C.M. 32019/2015
SANSAR CHAND Petitioner
Through: Ms. Indrani Ghosh &Ms. Tamali Wad, Advocates
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION &ANR. Respondents , Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Addl. Standing
Counsel, Mr. Vikramaditya & Mr. Rajiv Tanwar, Advocates for respondent No.1
Mr. Indu Shekhar, Respondent No.2 in person (iii) + W.P.(Cri2059/2015 &C.M. 32020/2015
BALRAM Petitioner
Through: Ms. Indrani Ghosh &Ms. Tamali Wad, Advocates
^ Page 1
Counsel, Mr. Vikramaditya & Mr. Rajiv Tanwar, Advocates for respondent No.1
Mr. Indu Shekhar, Respondent No.2 in person (iii) + W.P.(Cri2059/2015 &C.M. 32020/2015
BALRAM Petitioner
Through: Ms. Indrani Ghosh &Ms. Tamali Wad, Advocates
^ Page 1
W.P.(C) 12056/2015 ^
W.P.(C) 12058/2015
W.P.(C) 12059/2015
W.P.(C) 12060/2015
2015:DHC:11609 7^
2015:DHC:11609 7^
VERSUS
DIECTOROF EDUCATION & ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Addl. Standing Counsel, Mr. Vikramaditya &Mr. Rajiv Tanwar-, Advocates for respondent No.1
Mr. Indu Shekhar, Respondent No.2 in person (iv) + W.P.(C^ 12060/2015 & C.M. 32021/2015
MAHENDER ' Petitioner
Through: Ms. Indrani Ghosh &Ms. Tamali Wad, Advocates
Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Addl. Standing Counsel, Mr. Vikramaditya &Mr. Rajiv Tanwar-, Advocates for respondent No.1
Mr. Indu Shekhar, Respondent No.2 in person (iv) + W.P.(C^ 12060/2015 & C.M. 32021/2015
MAHENDER ' Petitioner
Through: Ms. Indrani Ghosh &Ms. Tamali Wad, Advocates
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OFEDUCATION & ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Addl. Standing Counsel, is4r. Vikramaditya &Mr. Rajiv Tanwar, Advocates for respondentNo.1
Mr. Indu Shekhar, Respondent No.2 in person
Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Addl. Standing Counsel, is4r. Vikramaditya &Mr. Rajiv Tanwar, Advocates for respondentNo.1
Mr. Indu Shekhar, Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER o/o 21.12.2015 In the above captioned four petitions, direction is sought to respondent-School to follow the provisions of Delhi School Education
Act, 1973 and the Rules framed there-under.
The relief sought in the above captioned four petitions is identical, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these four
ORDER o/o 21.12.2015 In the above captioned four petitions, direction is sought to respondent-School to follow the provisions of Delhi School Education
Act, 1973 and the Rules framed there-under.
The relief sought in the above captioned four petitions is identical, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these four
W.P.CQ 12056/2015 - Page 2
W.P.(C) 12058/2015
W.P.(C) 12059/2015
W.P.(C) 12060/2015
2015:DHC:11609 petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this corhmon order.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are the
Drivers and Conductors of two old buses of respondent-School and petitioners apprehend that they would be retrenched by resort to
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners relied upon aSingle Bench decision of this Court in Kapoor
Chand & ors. Vs Delhi Administration & ors. 37 (1989) DLT 43 and decision of July, 2007 in W.P.(C) 1214/2006 5/zn Kishan Singh & ors. Vs. Director ofEducation & ors. to submit that the drivers and conductors ofthe school buses ofthe unaided schools are governed by the
Delhi School Education Act, 1973. Thus, in this petition a direction is sought to respondent-School to follow the provisions of Delhi School
Education Act, 1973.
Mr. Sanjay Ghosh, learned Additional Standing Counsel for first respondent draws attention ofthis Court to decisions in Cedric Dsilya Vs.
Union ofIndia 2007 Law Suit (Bom) 725 and decision of this Court in
Mathur Aviation Vs. U. Governor, Delhi and ors. 1977 SCConline Del
13 to submit that the remedy does not lie under the Delhi School
Education Act, 1973 and petitioners have to resort to provisions of The
Industrial Disputes Act when any order retrenching them is passed.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the material on record, Ifind that respondent-School in a case of another conductor had retrenched his service by resort to Jhe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Order of 6'
January, 2015 (Annexure P-4) is already on record wherein it is disclosed
W.P.CC] 12056/2015
2015:DHC:11609 petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this corhmon order.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are the
Drivers and Conductors of two old buses of respondent-School and petitioners apprehend that they would be retrenched by resort to
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners relied upon aSingle Bench decision of this Court in Kapoor
Chand & ors. Vs Delhi Administration & ors. 37 (1989) DLT 43 and decision of July, 2007 in W.P.(C) 1214/2006 5/zn Kishan Singh & ors. Vs. Director ofEducation & ors. to submit that the drivers and conductors ofthe school buses ofthe unaided schools are governed by the
Delhi School Education Act, 1973. Thus, in this petition a direction is sought to respondent-School to follow the provisions of Delhi School
Education Act, 1973.
Mr. Sanjay Ghosh, learned Additional Standing Counsel for first respondent draws attention ofthis Court to decisions in Cedric Dsilya Vs.
Union ofIndia 2007 Law Suit (Bom) 725 and decision of this Court in
Mathur Aviation Vs. U. Governor, Delhi and ors. 1977 SCConline Del
13 to submit that the remedy does not lie under the Delhi School
Education Act, 1973 and petitioners have to resort to provisions of The
Industrial Disputes Act when any order retrenching them is passed.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the material on record, Ifind that respondent-School in a case of another conductor had retrenched his service by resort to Jhe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Order of 6'
January, 2015 (Annexure P-4) is already on record wherein it is disclosed
W.P.CC] 12056/2015
W.P.(C) 12058/2015
W.P.(C) 12059/2015
W.P.(C) 12060/2015
Page 3 2015:DHC:11609 that respondent-School neither had the financial capacity to buy new buses nor any alternate employment for the conductor. During the course ofhearing, respondent No.2 had submitted that there is no vacancy in the respondent-School and so, petitioners cannot be absorbed and the process to reheve petitioners is in progress.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, I fmd that reliance placed upon decision in Kapoor Chand (supra) is ofno avail, as the said case is related to the salary etc. and in Shri Kishan Singh (supra), applicability of Rule 44 of The Delhi School Education Rules was the issue. During the course ofhearing, attention ofthis Court was not drawn to any Rule framed under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 to show its violation. So, the direction as in Kishan Singh (supra) cannot be issued in the instant case. - .
Finding these petitions to be premature, they are disposed of with liberty to petitioners to avail ofthe remedy, as available in the law, ifthey are retrenched by invoking provisions ofThe IndustrialDisputes Act
With aforesaid observations, the above captioned four petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of
DECEMBER 21, 2015 r ^NIL GAUR)
JUDGE
W.P.[C) 12056/2015 ^
Page 3 2015:DHC:11609 that respondent-School neither had the financial capacity to buy new buses nor any alternate employment for the conductor. During the course ofhearing, respondent No.2 had submitted that there is no vacancy in the respondent-School and so, petitioners cannot be absorbed and the process to reheve petitioners is in progress.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, I fmd that reliance placed upon decision in Kapoor Chand (supra) is ofno avail, as the said case is related to the salary etc. and in Shri Kishan Singh (supra), applicability of Rule 44 of The Delhi School Education Rules was the issue. During the course ofhearing, attention ofthis Court was not drawn to any Rule framed under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 to show its violation. So, the direction as in Kishan Singh (supra) cannot be issued in the instant case. - .
Finding these petitions to be premature, they are disposed of with liberty to petitioners to avail ofthe remedy, as available in the law, ifthey are retrenched by invoking provisions ofThe IndustrialDisputes Act
With aforesaid observations, the above captioned four petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of
DECEMBER 21, 2015 r ^NIL GAUR)
JUDGE
W.P.[C) 12056/2015 ^
W.P.(C) 12058/2015
W.P.(C) 12059/2015
W.P.(C) 12060/2015
2015:DHC:11609
2015:DHC:11609
JUDGMENT