Delhi High Court
Ram Baran vs Mata Jai Kaur Public School And ... on 12 November, 2021
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:14.11.2021
13:05:05
$~ A-11 TO A-22 (2019)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 12th November, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 9182/2019 & CM APPLs. 525/2020, 526/2020
PRATAP SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yashaswi S.K. Chocksey, Adv.
for Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
JASPAL KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Bhat, Advocate.
A-12 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 9183/2019
RAMPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yashaswi S.K. Chocksey, Adv.
for Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
JASPAL KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Bhat, Advocate.
A-13 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 9184/2019
MOHINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yashaswi S.K. Chocksey, Adv.
for Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
JASPAL KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Bhat, Advocate.
A-14 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 9186/2019
VIJAY KUMAR PANDEY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yashaswi S.K. Chocksey, Adv.
for Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
MATA JAI KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Bhat, Advocate.
A-15 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 9187/2019
VED PAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yashaswi S.K. Chocksey, Adv.
W.P.(C) 9182/2019 and connected matters Page 1 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:14.11.2021
13:05:05
for Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
JASPAL KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Bhat, Advocate.
A-16 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 9188/2019
JITENDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yashaswi S.K. Chocksey, Adv.
for Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
JASPAL KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Bhat, Advocate.
A-17 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 9189/2019
FAUJA SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yashaswi S.K. Chocksey, Adv.
for Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
MATA JAI KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Bhat, Advocate.
A-18 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 9190/2019
RAM BARAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yashaswi S.K. Chocksey, Adv.
for Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
MATA JAI KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Bhat, Advocate.
A-19 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 9191/2019
GHANSHYAM JHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yashaswi S.K. Chocksey, Adv.
for Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
MATA JAI KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Bhat, Advocate.
A-20 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 9194/2019
W.P.(C) 9182/2019 and connected matters Page 2 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:14.11.2021
13:05:05
NARENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yashaswi S.K. Chocksey, Adv.
for Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
JASPAL KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Bhat, Advocate.
A-21 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 9195/2019
RADHEY SHYAM YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yashaswi S.K. Chocksey, Adv.
for Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
JASPAL KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Bhat, Advocate.
A-22 AND
+ W.P.(C) 9196/2019
BRIJPAL SAINI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yashaswi S.K. Chocksey, Adv.
for Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
JASPAL KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Bhat, Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The present petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders
dated 3rd May 2019, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rouse
Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi, vide which, the applications filed by
the Management for rejecting the claim of the Workmen have been allowed,
and the claims of the workmen have been dismissed as not maintainable.
3. Ld. counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have been
non-suited on the ground of res-judicata. He submits that the Labour Court
could not have considered the said plea of res-judicata at the initial stage.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:14.11.2021
13:05:05
Ld. Counsel relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Srihari
Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.
4665/2021, decided on 9th August 2021), to argue that res-judicata ought to
be a plea which should have been considered after all the pleadings are
complete and issues are framed in the matter before the Labour Court.
4. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent-School has, on the other
hand, taken the Court through the previous round of proceedings before the
Education Tribunal and the resultant orders passed in the writ petition
bearing W.P.(C) 4335/2017 titled Rampal Singh v. The Director of
Education and Anr. and the consequent LPA, bearing LPA No. 611/2017 to
argue that the question of retrenchment under Section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 1947 (hereinafter referred as "the Act"), has already
been adjudicated by this Court. He submits that the same ground which is
sought to be alleged in these writ petitions, has already been raised,
considered and decided. According to him, the Petitioners are attempting to
obtain a second chance in respect of the same very objections to argue that
the retrenchment is illegal, and the Labour Court has rightly held that the
claims of the Workman are not maintainable.
5. Heard ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of
the ld. Single Judge's order dated 19th May 2017 in W.P.(C) 4335/2017
titled Rampal Singh v. The Director of Education and Anr., and connected
matters, which involve the very same Petitioners, shows that the issue
considered by the ld. Single Judge in that case was as to whether there was
proper adherence to provisions of Section 25F of the Act, prior to the
retrenchment of the Petitioners. On this issue, the findings of the ld. Single
Judge are as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:14.11.2021
13:05:05
"4. The only plea urged by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the respondents have not complied with
the provisions of Section 25F(c), which reads as under:-
"(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the
appropriate Government [or such authority as may
be specified by the appropriate Government by
notification in the Official Gazette]."
5. He states, that it was required for the School to give
notice to the appropriate Government in a particular
format.
6. On a specific query to the learned counsel for the
petitioners as to whether such a plea was taken before the
Tribunal in the manner now urged by him, the answer is in
the negative. He also states that the plea is purely a legal
issue and can be considered by the Court in these Writ
Proceedings. I am unable to agree with the only submission
made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, inasmuch
as there was no plea before the Tribunal in the manner it
has been urged by the learned counsel before me. The
ground with regard to Section 25F was in the following
manner:
"because the respondent No.2 retrenched the
appellant under Section 25(f) of ID Act but appellant
come under Section 2(h), 8(2) and 10 of the Delhi
School Education Act, 1972 ".
7. I note, that in reply to the Appeal before the Delhi School
Tribunal, the School respondent No.2 has contended as
under;-
"XXXX XXXX XXXX
The respondent No.2 strictly complied with all the
requirements in respect of the retrenchment for issuance
of the necessary notice to the Appropriate Government.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX"
8. There is no rebuttal to this stand of the respondent No.2
in rejoinder wherein the petitioners have only stated as
under;-
"That the contents of para 7 of the preliminary
objection are wrong and denied. However the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:14.11.2021
13:05:05
respondent No.2 with a malafide intention made
all the driver including the appellant on the road
by retrenchment, they even did not follow the
Rule and Regulation of DSE Act. "
9. In view of the aforesaid, it must be held that Section
25F(c) has been followed. I may also state here on a
specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioners that
whether requirement under Section 25F(a) and Section
25F(b) have been complied with by the respondent No.2,
the answer was in the affirmative. In other words, the
compensation has been rightly given to the petitioners with
proper notice. The following are the details of the
compensation received by each of the petitioners in this
batch of writ petitions:-
S.NO. W.P.(C) DATE OF COMPENSATION
RETRENCHMENT/TERMINATION
1. 4308/2017 May 31,2016 Rs.9,85,349/-
2. 4335/2017 May 31, 2016 Rs. 13,39,883/-
3. 4370/2017 May 31,2016 Rs.7,21,560/-
4. 4314/2017 May 31,2016 Rs.5,93,411/-
5. 4307/2017 May 31,2016 Rs.7,45,050/-
6. 4317/2017 May 31,2016 Rs. 10,53,676/-
7. 4319/2017 May31,2016 Rs.6,29,340/-
8. 4344/2017 May 31,2016 Rs.11,11,160/-
9. 4328/2017 May 31,2016 Rs.7,44,180/-
10. 4325/2017 May 31,2016 Rs.7,49,994/-
10. I may also note, the learned counsel for the petitioners
has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case reported as (2016) 6 SCC 541 Raj Kumar v.
Directorate of Education to contend that provisions of
Section 25F need to be followed scrupulously. There is no
dispute on the said proposition. As concluded by the Delhi
School Tribunal that provisions of Section 25F have been
followed, with which I concur, 1 do not see any merit in the
only plea urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs."
6. This judgment was carried in appeal before the Division bench, where
vide order dated 15th September 2017, the LPA, bearing LPA No. 611/2017,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:14.11.2021
13:05:05
was withdrawn by the Petitioners, and liberty, as sought, was granted in the
following terms.
"It is pointed out that the limited ground urged in this
appeal is that the learned Single Judge despite noticing that
the provisions of Section 25 F(c) of The Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 have not been complied with and further noticing
that the pleadings in that regard did not support arguments,
proceeded to render findings. It is submitted therefore that
the appellant / workman may be permitted to withdraw the
present appeal with liberty to pursue remedy in accordance
with law under The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Liberty granted. This appeal and pending application
are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn."
7. A perusal of the above paragraph of the order of the Division Bench
shows that, first, the submission of ld. Counsel for the Appellants therein
was that the ld. Single Judge had held that provisions of Section 25F of the
ID Act had not been complied with, whereas in fact, the ld. Single Judge
holds the contrary, which is clear from the reading of the first sentence of
paragraph 9 of the order of the ld. Single Judge. In any event, the liberty to
withdraw, which was granted to the Appellants, was to be exercised in
accordance with law.
8. A perusal of the order of the ld. Single Judge dated 19th May 2017
shows that the Petitioners' counsel raised the issue regarding Section 25F
compliance in the writ petition. The same was considered by the Court. The
order is clear and categorical to the effect that there was complete
compliance of Section 25F of the Act. The ld. Single Judge has given clear
findings to the effect that compensation has been paid and the amounts of
the compensation have also been mentioned. They were given proper notice
and all the requirements were complied with. In fact, the pleadings of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:14.11.2021
13:05:05
Petitioners have also been extracted to show the fact that compliance of 25F
of the Act has been done, and the same was even not denied by the
Petitioners herein.
9. The Labour Court, in the impugned order, has held that once the ld.
Single Judge had held that the Section 25F of the Act is duly complied with,
the claims are not maintainable. The relevant findings of the Labour Court
are as under:
"...The fact remains the Hon'ble Single Judge of the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi has given a categorical and detailed
finding that the compliance under Section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 has been duly followed by the management.
Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, this court
cannot pass an award with a finding on the retrenchment when
the same has already been decided and upheld by the Hon'ble
Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Further, the
said finding has not been set aside by the Hon'ble Division
Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and has thus
attained finality and cannot be re-agitated before this court.
Further, this court is also in agreement with the judgment
relied upon by Ld. AR for management i.e. Chairman and
Managing Director, The Fertilizers And Chemicals
Tranvancore Ltd. & Anr. Vs. General Secretary FACT
Employees Association & Ors. (supra) and since the issue in
question has already been decided by a competent court i.e.
Ld. Delhi School Tribunal, the claim of the claimant also
suffers from the Principals of res-judicata and the claimant
cannot be permitted in law to re-agitate the same issue before
this court. Therefore, keeping in view all these facts and
circumstances, the application of the management is allowed
and the claim of the claimant is rejected being not
maintainable."
Once the ld. Single Judge had held that there was compliance of Section 25F
of the Act, the Labour Court has inevitably followed the said judgment. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:14.11.2021
13:05:05
Labour Court rightly holds that the finding of the ld. Single Judge has
attained finality.
10. In respect of the submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, that the
plea of res-judicata cannot be considered at this stage by the Labour Court,
the said plea does not hold weight and would not be applicable when
admittedly the Petitioners themselves had availed of their remedies under
the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and had urged the contention of non-
compliance of Section 25F of the Act before the Court dealing with the writ
petition. The same objection cannot be raised twice, heard twice and
adjudicated again.
11. Even if the same is not treated as res-judicata, the judgment of the ld.
Single Judge can be read in evidence before the Labour Court, and can be
considered even at the preliminary stage as a judgment which is of
relevance. This Court is of the opinion, that the Petitioners after having
accepted the compensation paid intend to merely take a chance, firstly
before the Education Tribunal and thereafter before the Labour Court. Such
an approach cannot be permitted.
12. Under these circumstances, in view of the order of the ld. Single
Judge of this Court dated 19th May 2017, the retrenchment having been held
to be in compliance with Section 25F of the Act, the present petitions
challenging the impugned order would not be maintainable. The impugned
order is correct and does not warrant any interference.
13. All the petitions are dismissed, with no orders as to costs.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 12, 2021/dk/Ak
