Delhi High Court
Shri Sain Singh, Shri Vinod Kumar ... vs Harcourt Butler Senior Secondary ... on 11 October, 2006
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the notices dated 9.10.1998 issued by the respondent school to the petitioners under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act informing the petitioners that in view of the order of Supreme Court in pollution matters Government had issued notification banning plying of more than 20 yeas old buses w.e.f. 1st October, 1998. Since the buses used by the school were more than 20 yeas old, the school was keeping these buses off the road and school did not intend to ply buses anymore. In these circumstances, the services of petitioners would stand terminated w.e.f. 10th November, 1998. Each petitioner was sent a cheque of the amount of retrenchment compensation in terms of Clause 25F of Industrial Disputes Act. Since the petitioners were in occupation of the residential accommodation provided by the school, they were told to vacate the residential quarters and were also told that in case they continued to keep these quarters after 10th November, 1998, they will be charged mesne profits and damages at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- p.m.
2. At the admission stage, the petitioners alleged that they were governed by Delhi School Education Act being employees of educational institution and provisions of Industrial Disputes Act would not apply. This Court admitted the petition observing that it would have to be adjudicated whether the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act were applicable to the petitioners or they would be governed by Delhi School Education Act.
3. During the pendency of the writ petition, an affidavit was filed by the Directorate of Education stating that the petitioners appointment were neither sanctioned nor approved by Delhi Administration/Directorate of Education and salary of petitioners were being paid from a separate fund called School Bus and Management Fund. Their services were not governed by Delhi School Education Act. Rules as made there under were not applicable and no prior approval of Directorate of Education was required for dismissing the petitioners. However, the petition was adjourned for arguments.
4. A Division Bench of this Court in Daulat Ram and Ors. v. Union of India 2006 III LLJ 176 held that school was also an industry and the employees were workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act and an alternate remedy of raising the industrial dispute was available to the employees.
5. It is argued by the Counsel for petitioners that the writ petition was maintainable even if the petitioners had alternate remedy of raising an industrial dispute. It is settled law that while exercising writ jurisdiction, High Court cannot entertain the issues involving disputed questions of fact. The writ petition can be entertained only where claimant comes to the Court for enforcement of his legal/constitutional rights and there is no alternate remedy and no involvement of disputes facts. The petitioners should have raised an industrial dispute, since they were equally governed by Industrial Disputes Act. However, the facts in this case are not disputed and therefore, this writ petition is considered on merits.
6. The petitioners were working as drivers/conductors of the buses being run by the school. Under the orders of the Supreme Court, all polluting buses were directed to be taken off the road. The buses which were not running on CNG or the buses which were more than 20 years old were therefore, to be taken off the road by the owners. The respondent No. 1 in this case was plying buses for carrying students to the school and it formed a Bus committee for this purpose. The committee decided to take off the buses from the road in view of the Supreme Court order and the notification issued by the Government. The business/work of plying buses was, therefore, closed down, and there was no alternative with the respondent No. 1 but to retrench the petitioners. So, no fault could be found with the retrenchment notice given by respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 along with the retrenchment notice had sent retrenchment compensation to each of the petitioners. No dispute has been raised about the inadequacy of the compensation. The retrenchment was therefore legal and for valid reasons.
7. Accordingly, I find that there is no force in the writ petition. The writ petition is hereby dismissed.
8. The counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the petitioners continue to be in illegal occupation of the residential quarters. They have illegally made unauthorised constructions and also made additional rooms by way of unauthorised constructions. The respondent No. 1 would be at liberty to take action for unauthorised construction and would also be at liberty to charge appropriate mesne profits and damages for the illegal occupation of the residential quarters.
