Delhi High Court
Shri Baidya Nath Yadav & Ors. vs Guru Tegh Bahadur Polytechnic ... on 27 January, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 745/2017 & CM Nos. 3478-79/2017
% 27th January, 2017
SHRI BAIDYA NATH YADAV & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar,
Advocates.
versus
GURU TEGH BAHADUR POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Gayatri Aryan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India by the petitioners seeking reliefs of setting aside of the termination
letters issued by the respondent no.1/Guru Tegh Bahadur Polytechnic
Institute/employer terminating the services of the petitioner.
2. Respondent no.2 is constituted because of the Delhi Sikh
Gurudwara Act, 1971. Respondent no.2 performs its functions under the
Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act for running educational institutions and the
employees of the educational institutions are therefore employees of the
respondent no.2 and the respondent no.1 is functioning under the Delhi Sikh
Gurudwara Act.
3. Section 32 of the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act provides for a
designated forum being a court of the District Judge to decide disputes inter
se the employees and the educational institutes run by the respondent no.2/
Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. Section 32 of the Delhi
Sikh Gurudwara Act reads as under:-
"32. Jurisdiction of District Court in other matters- The Court of the
District Judge in Delhi shall also have jurisdiction in respect of the
following matters, namely:-
(c) Petitions regarding complaints, irregularities, breach of trust,
mismanagement in any Gurdwara, educational or other institu- tions against
any member, office- bearer or officer or other employee of the Committee.
(d) Petitions arising out of any type of disputes between the Committee and
its employees including past employees.
(e) Applications regarding failure of publication of, or non- implementation
or non- clearance of the objections raised in, any annual report of the
auditors of the Committee."
4. The disputes which are subject matter of the present writ
petition would be governed by sub-section (d) of the Section 32 and
therefore, the petitioner will have to approach the designated court.
5. On the aspect of maintainability of the writ petition various
judgments have been passed by learned Single Judges of this Court
including Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and one such judgment is
the judgment in the case of Satpal Singh Vs. Delhi Sikh Gurudwara
Management Committee & Anr. 181 (2011) DLT 455. In this judgment
Hon'ble Judge by referring to Section 32 of the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act
has held the writ petition not to be maintainable when the disputes are those
covered under Section 32(d).
6. It is therefore clear that petitioners have approached the Court
although there is an alternative efficacious remedy of approaching the
concerned District Judge before whom all the issues which are raised in the
writ petition can be heard and decided. I have failed to understand as to why
litigants and counsels without even reading basic aspects of law, and the
repeated judgments passed by this Court, should at all file non-maintainable
petitions in this Court. It is high time that the litigants and lawyers are well
advised to at least read the basic law before approaching courts of law.
7. In view of the fact that there is an alternative efficacious
remedy, it is held that this writ petition is not maintainable, and thus this
Court refuses to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
8. Dismissed.
JANUARY 27,2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
ib
