Delhi High Court
Baidyanath Yadav & Ors vs Guru Tegh Bahadur Polytechnic ... on 21 February, 2018
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 21.02.2018
+ LPA 95/2017, C.M. No. 4694/2017 & C.M. No. 10740/2017
BAIDYANATH YADAV & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Lawin, Advocate.
versus
GURU TEGH BAHADUR POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocate along
with Mr. Aditya Madaan, Advocate
for DSGMC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. (ORAL)
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters
Patent Act assails the judgment dated 27.01.2017, passed in W.P (C) No.
745/2017 titled as "Baidyanath Yadav & Ors vs. Guru Tegh Bahadur
Polytechnic Institute & Anr." (hereinafter referred to as „the subject
petition‟), whereby, a learned Single Judge of this Court having found that
the subject disputes raised therein would be governed by sub-section (d) of
Section 32 of the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as
LPA 95/2017 Page 1
„the said act‟), and after holding that there was an alternative efficacious
remedy available under the provisions of the said Act; dismissed the subject
petition as being not maintainable.
2. In order to effectively determine the issue that has arisen in the
present appeal, it would be profitable to reproduce the provisions of Section
32 of the said Act, which read as follows:-
"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 institutions 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."
3. A simple reading of the above provisions clearly reflects that any and
all types of disputes between the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management
Committee (DSGMC) - respondent No.2, and its employees are exclusively
subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of the District Judge in Delhi.
4. In Satpal Singh vs. DSGMC & Anr. reported as 181 (2011) DLT 455,
a learned Single Judge of this Court in reference to Section 32 of the said
Act held that, when the disputes raised are those covered under sub-section
(d), a writ petition is not maintainable.
LPA 95/2017 Page 2
5. The said decision was carried in appeal, being LPA No.619/2011, and
the same was disposed off by a Division Bench of this Court vide its order
dated 02.08.2011, holding therein as follows:-
"... In our considered opinion, when the District Judge has
been conferred the jurisdiction, it is not only an alternative but
an efficacious remedy because it is a statutory authority, which
can enter into factual disputes, whereas while exercising the
power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, there would be a different approach..."
6. In view of the foregoing, the issue raised in the present appeal is no
longer res integra and we are bound by the decision rendered by a co-
ordinate bench of this Court.
7. However, it must be pointed out that the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants has tried to distinguish their case on the assertion
that the appellants are not employees of the DSGMC. However, this
assertion made on behalf of the appellants is belied by the averments made
by them in the subject petition itself, which are for the sake of felicity
reproduced hereunder:-
"3. The Petitioners are regular and permanent
employees of Respondent by virtue of memorandum/memo,
confirmation orders, etc. issued by it in favour of the
Petitioners. The Petitioners are not the employees of
Respondent No. 1. As per the aims and objects of Respondent
No. 2 is to spread education and for that purpose to establish
educational institutions including colleges, technical institutes
like the Respondent No. 1, various schools namely Guru
Harkishan Public School, etc. It is stated that all the
educational institutions/schools are run and managed by the
respective management of said education institutes/schools and
LPA 95/2017 Page 3
not otherwise. The Respondent No. 2 has also established
Hospitals and dispensaries under its respective management.
The Respondent No. 2 is a parent body of all the educational
institutions/schools/hospital/dispensaries and all the employees
working under the management of respective educations
institutions/schools/hospitals/dispensaries are the employees of
respective managements of such educational
institutions/schools/hospital/dispensaries etc. The Respondent
No. 2 has a control over all the respective managements of
such educational institutions and hence not the employer of
employees working under such educational institutions."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. A plain reading of the above extracted paragraph clearly reveals that
the appellants have on their asseverated that, the DGSMC (arrayed as
Respondent No.2 in the present appeal as well as the subject petition) has
control over the management of all the educational institutions established
by it, including, the Guru Tegh Bahadur Polytechnic Institute (arrayed as
respondent No. 1 herein as well as the subject petition); and they are not the
employees of the latter institute.
9. Even otherwise, the provisions of sub-sections (iv), (x), (xi) and (xii)
of Section 24 of the said Act clearly postulate that the DSGMC is vested
with the control, direction and general superintendence over all the
educational institutions established by them under the said Act.
10. At this stage, it would be asserted on behalf of the appellants that the
averments made in the above extracted paragraph that "the petitioners are
not the employees of Respondent No.1" and, further, that the petitioners are
the employees of the "Respondent"; are the result of a typographical error.
LPA 95/2017 Page 4
11. In this behalf, it would be relevant to observe that the appellants have
at no stage of the proceedings, since the institution of the subject petition,
urged at the bar or filed an application in support of their assertion now that
there is a typographical error in the above extracted paragraph, and the same
cannot therefore be countenanced at this stage, at the time of oral arguments
in the Appeal.
12. In this view of the matter, we find no error in the impugned judgment,
insofar as it holds that the appellants have an alternative efficacious remedy
and, consequently, the writ petition filed against the above respondents is
not maintainable.
13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, whilst reserving liberty to the
appellants to approach the concerned District Judge to raise the disputes that
form the subject matter of the present proceedings, in accordance with law.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
FEBRUARY 21, 2018
ss
LPA 95/2017 Page 5
