Kunal & Ors vs Naval Public School & Anr
2018 Latest Caselaw 88 Del

$~11
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of Order: January 04, 2018
+                          W.P.(C) 11887/2015

      KUNAL & ORS                                ..... Petitioners
               Through:          Mr.Manoj Kumar Sahu, Advocate

                                 versus

    NAVAL PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR           ..... Respondents
             Through: Mr.Ambuj Dixit, Advocate and
                      Ms.Kritika Angirish, Advocate for R-1
                      with Captain Rakesh Dhall, Executive
                      Director Mr.Satyakam, Advocate (ASC)
                      for respondent No.2 and Mr.Ashok
                      Nayar, LA, DoE, GNCTD
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
                       ORDER

(ORAL)

CM No.45010/2017 By way of this application, first respondent has provided the break- up of salary of late Jai Raj whose legal heirs are petitioners herein.

The application is allowed and the break-up of the salary of Jai Raj provided in this application is taken on record. W.P.(C) No.11887/2015

1. By way of this writ petition, petitioner seeks execution of the award of 18th February, 2006 vide which reinstatement of workman-Jai Raj with continuity in service and full back wages was ordered. Respondent-management had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C)

No.12600/2006 which was disposed of vide order of 24 th April, 2012 (Annexure P-3). The petitioners herein are seeking the compliance of the order of 24th April, 2012 (Annexure P-3). While entertaining this writ petition, respondent-school was called upon to give the break-up of amount of `7,331/- which has been done by way of CM No.45010/2017. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are also entitled to gratuity, leave encashment and provident fund dues, which is disputed by learned counsel for respondent-school.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in view of Labour Court Award, petitioners are also entitled to bonus. Learned counsel for respondent-school submits that since the workman-Jai Raj had died, therefore, petitioners are not entitled to any bonus as respondent-school is not a profit making entity and all the dues have been paid to the petitioners.

3. Upon hearing, I find that there is some dispute about the dues payable in terms of the Labour Court Award which is not required to be gone into in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners are relegated to avail of the remedies to available in law to get the Award of 18th February, 2006 executed from the concerned forum.

4. With aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.

SUNIL GAUR (JUDGE) JANUARY 04, 2018 mamta