Delhi High Court
Ghanshyam Jha vs Mata Jai Kaur Public School & Anr. on 20 July, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 20th JULY, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ LPA 410/2022 & CM APPLs. 30612-13/2022
JITENDER KUMAR ..... Appellant
versus
JASPAL KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondents
+ LPA 411/2022 & CM APPLs. 30648-49/2022
GHANSHYAM JHA ..... Appellant
versus
MATA JAI KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondents
+ LPA 412/2022 & CM APPLs. 30675-76/2022
RAMPAL SINGH ..... Appellant
versus
JASPAL KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondents
+ LPA 414/2022 & CM APPLs. 30682-83/2022
BRIJPAL SAINI ..... Appellant
versus
JASPAL KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondents
+ LPA 415/2022 & CM APPLs. 30684-85/2022
FAUJA SINGH ..... Appellant
versus
MATA JAI KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondents
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA LPA 410/2022 etc. Page 1 of 6
Signing Date:22.07.2022
10:21:09
+ LPA 416/2022 & CM APPLs. 30692/2022 & 30755/2022
RAM BARAN ..... Appellant
versus
MATA JAI KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondents
+ LPA 417/2022 & CM APPLs. 30813-14/2022
VIJAY KUMAR PANDEY ..... Appellant
versus
MATA JAI KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondents
+ LPA 220/2022
MOHINDER SINGH ..... Appellant
versus
JASPAL KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondents
MEMO OF APPEARANCE:
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Mr. Rajnish Kumar Singh & Mr. Mukesh
Kumar, Advocates for the Appellants.
Mr. Anil Bhatt, Ms. Chand Chopra & Mr. Siddharth Shekhar,
Advocates for the Respondents No. 1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. Vide the present appeals, the Appellants seek to challenge the Order
dated 12.11.2021, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:22.07.2022
10:21:09
of writ petitions, being W.P.(C) No.9188/2019, W.P.(C) No.9191/2019, etc.,
whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the
aforementioned writ petitions and has affirmed the Order dated 03.05.2019,
passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rouse Avenue Court
Complex, New Delhi, by which the claims of the Appellants
herein/workmen have been dismissed as not maintainable.
2. Facts of the case reveal that the Appellants were appointed to various
posts by the Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the school'). It is
stated that the Appellants herein/workmen were retrenched by an Order
dated 31.05.2016. The Orders of retrenchment were challenged by the
Appellants herein/workmen before the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal vide Order dated 15.02.2017
rejected the appeals filed by the Appellants herein. In the appeal it was
contended that the retrenchment Order dated 31.05.2016 is illegal and bad in
law. The Tribunal held that the provisions of Delhi School Education Act
will not be applicable to the Appellants because the School is a minority
institution. It is noted in the said Order that prior to approaching the
Tribunal, the Appellants had already challenged the Order of retrenchment
before the concerned authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act') vide registered diary No.2538 dated
01.06.2016, but the Appellants have not disclosed the same in the appeal
filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the
Appellants herein have not come to the Court with clean hands. The
Tribunal also found that vide Order dated 11.07.2016, the proceedings
initiated by the Appellants under the I.D. Act were dismissed in default. The
Tribunal also observed that the Appellants could not point out any flaw in
the retrenchment Order/letter dated 31.05.2016 and the School has followed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:22.07.2022
10:21:09
all the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act while retrenching the
Appellants from the service. The Appellants herein challenged this Order by
filing a batch of writ petitions, being W.P.(C) 4335/2017, 4344/2017, etc.
The learned Single Judge of this Court vide Order dated 19.05.2017
dismissed the writ petitions by observing that Section 25F(c) of the I.D. Act
has been followed by the School. Order dated 19.05.2017 was taken up by
the Appellants before the Division Bench of this Court by filing LPA
616/2017. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said LPA by
passing the following Order:
" 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."
3. In view of the liberty granted by the Division Bench of this Court, the
Appellants once again initiated proceedings under the I.D. Act. Objections
were raised by the School and an application was filed before the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in LIR/1474/2018,
seeking rejection of the claims of the Appellants herein on the ground that
the issue has already been settled by the Tribunal which has been affirmed
by this Court vide Order dated 19.05.2017. The Labour Court vide Order
dated 03.05.2019 held the objections of the School and rejected the claim of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:22.07.2022
10:21:09
the Appellants herein on the ground that the issue has already been
adjudicated and, therefore, the Appellants cannot raise the plea that Section
25F(c) of the I.D. Act has not been followed. Thereafter, an application was
filed by the Appellants seeking clarification of the Order dated 15.09.2017
which was withdrawn on 05.08.2019. Order dated 03.05.2019 has been
challenged by the Appellants by filing a batch of writ petitions which have
been rejected by the Order impugned herein.
4. Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
Mr. Anil Bhatt, learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2, and perused
the material on record.
5. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
contends that the issue as to whether Section 25F(c) of the I.D. Act has been
followed or not has not been adjudicated and that the Appellants had
approached the Labour Court in view of the liberty granted by the Division
Bench of this Court.
6. A perusal of the Order dated 15.09.2017, passed by the Single Bench
of this Court in LPA 616/2017, shows that the contention of the Appellants
herein that the provisions of Section 25F(c) of the I. D. Act have not been
complied with has been noted in the Order sheet and after noting the
contention, permission sought by the learned Counsel for the Appellants
herein, to withdrew the LPA with liberty to pursue remedy in accordance
with law, was granted.
7. Learned Single Judge while hearing the challenge to the Order passed
by the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding in paragraph No.9
wherein it has been observed "it must be held that Section 25F(c) has been
followed". In view of the categorical finding given by the learned Single
Judge of this Court, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dwarka
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:22.07.2022
10:21:09
Courts, New Delhi was justified in coming to the conclusion that the issue
has been answered against the workmen and it cannot be re-adjudicated once
again in a different forum. The Division Bench of this Court, after analysing
the facts of the case, has upheld the Orders dated 03.05.2019 passed by the
learned Single Judge. The contention of the learned Counsel for the
Appellants that the provisions of Section 25F(c) of the I.D. Act had not been
followed, has been rejected by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge
vide Order dated 19.05.2017 has categorically held that Section 25F(c) has
been followed. As rightly pointed out in the impugned Order that the
objection regarding compliance of Section 25F(c) of the I.D. Act has
attained finality between the same parties and, therefore, it cannot be
permitted to be re-adjudicated again.
8. In view of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity with the
Order impugned herein. Accordingly, the LPAs are dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, C.J.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
JULY 20, 2022
Rahul
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:22.07.2022
10:21:09
