Shamjibhai Chhaganbhai Shankhat vs Parvatibai Chougule English ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10759 Guj

     C/SCA/8655/2017                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8655 of 2017


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
==========================================================
1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                        NO
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                                 NO

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                       NO
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question                       NO
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                SHAMJIBHAI CHHAGANBHAI SHANKHAT
                              Versus
           PARVATIBAI CHOUGULE ENGLISH SCHOOL & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
MR MANISH BHATT, SR. ADVOCATE, MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
 CORAM:           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
                          Date : 05/08/2021
                          ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard, learned Advocate, Ms. Mamta Vyas, appearing for the petitioner, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Manish Bhatt, assisted by learned Advocate, Ms. Mauna Bhatt, for Respondent Nos. 1 and2 and learned AGP, Mr. Jayneel Parikh, for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 through video conference.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate, Ms. Mauna Bhatt, waives notice of service of rule

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned AGP, Mr. Parikh, waives for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

3. Since, the issue involved in this petition IS in a very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective party, the same is taken-up for final hearing and disposal today.

4. The facts of this case are very peculiar. The petitioner was working as a gardener in the premises of Respondent No.1-School from the year 1982 to 2000, which is not disputed by the learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Bhatt, appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

4.1 Learned Advocate, Ms. Vyas, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as a gardener with Respondent No.1-School from the year 1982 till 2000 and his services were orally terminated by Respondent No.1-School, which is run by Respondent No.2-Trust.

4.2 On termination of his services as gardener by Respondent No.1-School, run by Respondent No.2- Trust, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

(for short, 'the ID Act') by making an application to the Labour Commissioner, Amreli.

4.3 The petitioner had also issued a notice dated 29.07.2000, calling upon Respondent No.2-Narmada Cement Education Trust, who runs Respondent No.1- School, namely Parvatibai Chougule English School to reinstate the petitioner in service. It was also contended that the services of the petitioner were terminated orally, without following the due procedure of law and without issuance of either notice or payment of notice pay or any retrenchment compensation. It was also stated in the said notice that the monthly salary of the petitioner was Rs.2276/-.

4.4 It appears that the Labour Commissioner, after considering the facts of the case by order dated 22.05.2001, made a reference to the Labour Court, Amreli, which was registered as Reference (LCA) No. 74 of 2001, which was renumbered as Reference (LCA) No. 10 of 2008 in the following terms:

"Whether, the Shamjibhai Chhagangbhai Shankhat should be reinstated on his original post with back-wages?"

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

4.5 The Petitioner filed his Statement of Claim vide Exhibit-4 before the Labour Court, contending inter alia that the petitioner was discharging duties as a gardener with Respondent No.1-School and was getting monthly salary of Rs.2276/- and without following the due procedure of law, the services of the petitioner orally came to be terminated on 17.01.2000, without issuance of notice or payment of notice pay or retrenchment compensation.

4.6 In response to the Statement of Claim filed by the petitioner, Respondent No.1-School filed written-statement on 21.06.2004, wherein, for the first time, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 raised the preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court on the ground that, Respondent No.1-School was registered as per Section 38 of the Gujarat Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Act, 1972 (in brief, 'the Act of 1972), and therefore, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction, as the petitioner was employed by Respondent No.1-School, and therefore, any dispute between the teaching and non-teaching staff with regard to their service conditions is to be decided by the Education Tribunal. It was also contended in the written statement filed before the Labour Court that the petitioner was an employee of the contractor, namely Tulsi Giga

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

Kava, proprietor of Shri Ram Fabrication Work, of Narmada Cement Company, and the petitioner worked up to 30.09.1998 and as, the said contractor is not joined as a necessary party in the Reference, it was prayed to reject the same on the aforesaid two preliminary grounds / objections.

4.7 It was also contended by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the written statement that the petitioner was, initially, engaged by the contractor, Valji Giga Kava, as a gardener and after the death of Valji Giga Kava, the petitioner was relieved and thereafter, the petitioner was again employed by another contractor, namely Tulsi Giga Kava. It was, therefore, contended that there was no 'Employer' and 'Employee' relationship between the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

4.8 The petitioner, thereafter, submitted documentary evidence, being the certificate dated 25.11.1996, issued by the Principal of Respondent No.1-School, whereby, it was certified that the petitioner was working with Respondent No.1- School, since 1982, till the date of issuance of the said certificate.

4.9 During the course of hearing before the

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

Labour Court, the petitioner was examined orally, wherein the petitioner deposed that he had joined the services with Respondent No.1-School in the year 1982 and no presence card or salary slip was given to the petitioner and the presence of the petitioner was marked in the Presence Register maintained by Respondent No.1-School, however, no copy of such register was given to the petitioner. The petitioner denied that he was employed by the Contractor and he was relieved on tendering resignation, voluntarily.

4.10 The petitioner was also cross-examined by before the Labour Court, wherein, he admitted that he was doing the work of gardening with Respondent No.1-School from 1982 to 2000. It was also admitted by the petitioner that in the year 1982, one Mr. Saxena was the Principal of Respondent No.1-School. The petitioner also denied that he was in know of any contractor, named Tulsi Giga, and that he had knowledge of Shri Ram Fabrication. The petitioner admitted that he had studied up to second Standard where he failed. The petitioner also relied on the certificate issued by the Principal of Respondent No.1-School.

4.11 Thereafter, the Labour Court examined

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

the witness for and on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely Kiritbhai Gunvantrai Bhatt, pursuant to the filing of affidavit-in-Reply by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, reiterating the contention raised in written statement filed on 21.08.2009.

4.12 The witness, namely Kiritbhai Gunvantrai Bhatt was also cross-examined on 04.11.2009, wherein, he admitted that the petitioner was working as gardener from 1982 to 2000 with Respondent No.1-School and at present, another person, namely Bholabhai, was working as gardener for the last two to three years. He also admitted that after 17.01.2000, the work of gardener has continued by the other persons in Respondent No.1-School.

4.13 After hearing both the sides, the Labour Court passed an award on 16.7.2010 dismissing the Reference of the petitioner on the ground that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties by accepting the contention raised by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the effect that Respondent No.1-School is duly registered under the Act of 1972, and therefore, considering the provisions of the Act of 1972, the educational tribunal constituted under the

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

Act has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 and

2. Labour Court, therefore, did not adjudicate upon the merits of the matter and passed the award on the limited issue of jurisdiction. Labour Court, therefore, also did not consider the other contentions raised for and on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner was not employed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, but, he was employed by the contractor.

4.14 The petitioner, thereafter, filed an Application No. 6 of 2011 before the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad ('Education Tribunal', in short), with a prayer to reinstate the petitioner in service, as his services were illegally terminated by Respondent No.1-School.

4.15 During the pendency of Application N. 6 of 2011, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application Exhibit-6, raising the preliminary objection / issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Educational Tribunal to hear the said application, on the ground that the petitioner was not an employee of Respondent No.1-School, as he was an employee of one Valjibhai Giga, who was a labour contractor of Ultratech Cement Limited,

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

which is engaged in manufacturing cement and the said Company had engaged the labour contractor for various works in its factory. It was also contended in the application Exhibit-6 that Respondent No.1-School is situated within the premises of the said Company and in order to give education to the children of employees of the said Company, Respondent No.2-Trust has been created for the purpose of managing the affairs of Respondent No.1-School. It was, further, submitted that the petitioner was engaged by a contractor of the said Company, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be an employee of Respondent No.1-School, and hence, the Education Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as per Section 38 of the Act of 1972.

4.16 The Education Tribunal passed an order below application Exhibit-6 and dismissed Application No. 6 of 2011 filed by the petitioner on the ground that the Education Tribunal has no jurisdiction, as the petitioner was not an employee of Respondent No.1-School. The Education Tribunal also considered the documents produced along with the memo of the application filed by the petitioner and referred to the order passed by the Labour Court as well as the salary

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

register produced on record from Page Nos. 55 to 101 to hold that the petitioner was an employee of the Contractor, Tulsi Giga Kava, proprietor of Shri Ram Fabrication and not an employee of Respondent No.1-School.

4.17 The Tribunal also referred to the

which show that the petitioner was an employee of the contractor and not an employee of Respondent No.1-School. The Education Tribunal also noted that the order passed by the Labour Court may be erroneous, but, as the petitioner did not challenge the said order and instead filed the application before the Education Tribunal, the Education Tribunal cannot have jurisdiction to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

4.18 It was also held by the Education Tribunal that merely because in the certificate dated 25.11.1996 issued by the Principal of Respondent No.1-School, it was mentioned that the petitioner was working as gardener in Respondent No.1-School, the petitioner cannot be said to be an employee of Respondent No.1-School. The Education Tribunal, therefore, held that the petitioner was an employee of the contractor,

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

Tulsi Giga Kava, and was working in the premises of Respondent No.1-School, and thereby, the Tribunal rejected Application No. 6 of 2011 filed by the petitioner.

5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders dated 16.07.2010 and 06.12.2016, passed by the Labour Court and the Education Tribunal, respectively, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

6. This Court (Coram: Mr. S.G. Shah, J. as His Lordships then was) passed following order on 28.07.2017:

"1. Learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani appearing for Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt states that they have instructions to appear for respondents No.1 and 2 and seeks permission to file appearance. Permission is granted.

2. Learned AGP wants some time to clarify the position regarding jurisdiction of the competent authorities, so as to redress the grievance raised by the petitioner. Respondent No.4 shall disclose their stand on record on or before 29.08.2017 irrespective of filing detailed affidavit- in-reply.

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

3. Petitioner has pointed out that respondents No.1 and 2 have taken different stand, contrary to each other against the petitioner on two different occasions, which resulted into present situation.

4. It is submitted that before the Labour Court, respondents No.1 and 2 have filed written statement at Exh.9, taking a stand that Labour Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present dispute, as the Tribunal constituted under the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 ('Act', for short) has jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute between any teaching and non- teaching staff and the private secondary schools registered under the Act. It is also contended that they are registered school under the Act. As against such specific stand taken before the Labour Court, respondents No.1 and 2 have taken different stand before the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal, contending that petitioner is not an employee of the school and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the employer and employee of such school and, thereby, Tribunal has no jurisdiction. As against that, it is admitted position that petitioner was working with the respondent as Gardener since October, 1982. In view of such adverse stand taken by the respondents No.1 and 2, which is contrary to each other and thereby, which has resulted into

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

non-adjudication of dispute raised by the petitioner by two different authorities, respondents No.1 and 2 are hereby called upon to explain that why they taken a stand not only different to each other, but negativating their stand before different authorities; whereas respondent No.3 has to clarify that what action it has taken in view of such situation.

5. It is made clear that non-filing of affidavit-in-reply or non-compliance of above direction/s by respondents No.1 and 2 shall be considered as adverse inference. 6. List the matter on 29.08.2017."

7. Thereafter, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their affidavit-in-Reply and it appears that after the matter was heard at length, the Coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Mr. Biren Vaishnav, J.) passed the following order on 02.03.2020:

"1. A suggestion was made by this Court on several occasions that a compensation amount of Rs.3 lakhs be paid to the petitioner for having been sent from Labour Court to the Tribunal and then the respondents taking a stand in the Tribunal that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.

2. Stand over to 18.03.2020."

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

8. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Manish Bhatt, appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not agreeable to the suggestion made by this Court, as per the aforesaid order dated 02.03.2020, and therefore, this matter was heard, at length, on merits.

9. Learned Advocate, Ms. Vyas, appearing for the petitioner submitted that before the Labour Court as well as before the Educational Tribunal, Respondent No.1-School has taken a contrary stand. It was submitted that the petitioner worked as a gardener with Respondent No.1-School from 1982 to 2000, which is not disputed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and therefore, the petitioner, in fact, was employed by Respondent No. 1-School where he discharged the duties as a gardener for more than 18 years.

9.1 It was submitted that the petitioner has studied only up to second standard where he failed, and he is not an educated person. It was, therefore, submitted that, though, the petitioner discharged duties for almost 18 years, without issuing any notice or paying notice pay or retrenchment compensation, the services of the petitioner were terminated and when the petitioner filed the Reference, Respondent Nos. 1

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

and 2 made contradictory statements before the Labour Court that the petitioner was an employee of Respondent No.1-School as well as he was an employee of the contractor and despite that, neither any application was filed to join the contractor as a party nor any attempt was made to bring on record any evidence by way of an affidavit or appointment letter or any other document to show that the petitioner was an employee of the contractor of the Company.

9.2 It was, further, submitted that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 raised two fold preliminary objections / submissions before the Labour Court, viz. (I) the petitioner was an employee of Respondent No. 1-School and (ii) only the Education Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the case. Further, before the Educational Tribunal, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the petitioner was not an employee of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, but, was an employee of the labour contractor and therefore, the Labour Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. It was, therefore, submitted that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 took contrary stands before the Labour Court as well as before the Educational Tribunal and the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Labour Court as well as the Education Tribunal on the preliminary ground without entering into the

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

merits of the matter, that both the forums do not have jurisdiction.

9.3 It was, therefore, submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in view of the above, passed an order on 02.03.2020 and made a suggestion to pay lump-sum compensation to the petitioner.

9.4 Learned Advocate, Ms. Vyas, also submitted that the certificate produced at Exhibit-16 before the Labour Court, clearly states that the petitioner was working as gardener from 1982 till date the date of issuance of the said certificate in the year 1996.

9.5 It was pointed out that the witness of Respondent No.1-School also admitted, in his cross-examination, that the petitioner had worked as a gardener from 1982 to 2000. It was, therefore, submitted that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not have double standards to the effect that the objection raised before the Labour Court was that the petitioner was an employee of Respondent No.1-School, and therefore, the Education Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the case, whereas, before the Education Tribunal, Respondent No.1-School took the stand that the

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

petitioner was an employee of the contractor and hence, the Labour Court has jurisdiction to try the case.

9.6 In support of her submissions, learned Advocate, Ms. Vyas, placed reliance on the decision of this Court (Coram: Mr. R.R. Tripathi, as His Lordship then was) rendered in Special Civil Application No. 5433 of 2002.

9.7 Learned Advocate, Ms. Vyas, also placed reliance on another decision of this Court (Coram: Mr. M.R. Shah, as His Lordship then was), Dated 09.09.2010 rendered in Special Civil Application Nos. 9437 and 9438 of 2010 wherein it has been held that an education institution is an 'Industry', by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in case of 'MISS. A.SUNDARAMBAL VERSUS GOVT. OF GOA, DAMAN & DIU AND OTHERS', reported in 1989(1) LLJ 61 and therefore, the employees of Mahuva Kelavani Sahyak Samaj were considered as workmen as provided under the ID Act so as to upheld the order passed by the Labour Court whereby the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner in the said petition was rejected.

9.8 Learned Advocate, Ms. Vyas, also placed reliance on the decision in 'SAURASHTRA UNIVERSITY & ANOTHER VERSUS SAURASHSTRA

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

UNIVERSITY KARMACHARI PARIVAR', reported in 2004 (1) GLR 160, wherein it is held that the dispute between an education institution and its employees can be adjudicated upon only by the forum constituted under the relevant Act and the Industrial Tribunal will have no jurisdiction in case of such a dispute.

10. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Bhatt, submitted that the Labour Court rejected the Reference filed by the petitioner on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in view of the contention raised for and on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the effect that Respondent No.1 is a school registered under the Act of 1972, and therefore, as per the provisions of the said Act, a Tribunal constituted under the said Act only would have jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1- School. It was, therefore, submitted that on such a contention having been accepted by the Labour Court, without going into the merits of the matter, as to whether the petitioner was an employee of Respondent No.1-School or not, the Labour Court rejected the Reference. It was also submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the award of the Labour Court and instead, the petitioner made an application before the Education Tribunal to redress his grievances.

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

10.1 It was, further, submitted that the relevant documents were produced before the Labour Court, and therefore, the petitioner was very-well aware of the contention raised for and on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner was never an employee of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and he was an employee of the contractor. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also have made similar averments in the written-statement filed in the year 2004 before the labour court. It was also pointed out that the relevant documents were produced by filing affidavit of the witness of Respondent No.1-School, namely Kiritbhai Gunvantrai Bhatt on 21.08.2009 and no question was raised or put to the said witness before the Labour Court for and on behalf of the petitioner with regard to such documents produced by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which clearly goes to show that the petitioner was not an employee of Respondent No.1-School, but was an employee of the contractor.

10.2 Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Bhatt also invited the attention of this Court to the list of documents produced before the Labour Court on 21.08.2009 which includes the identity card register, salary slips, salary register, PF

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

deduction list of the contractor, PF slips from the year 1993 to 1998 etc.. It was, therefore, submitted that petitioner was aware of the stand taken by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the effect that the petitioner was an employee of the contractor and not an employee of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

10.3 It was further submitted that out of the two preliminary submissions / objections raised before the Labour Court by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the Labour Court accepted the submission that Respondent No.1 is a school registered under the Act of 1972, and therefore, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. Thereafter, Respondent No.1-School raised another objection before the Education Tribunal that the petitioner was an employee of the contractor and not of Respondent No.1-School, and therefore, the Education Tribunal will also have no jurisdiction to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which was accepted by the Education Tribunal. It was, therefore, submitted that the petitioner has approached the wrong forum for redressal of his grievances, and therefore, no indulgence or interference is required by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this petition deserves to be dismissed.

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

11. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective party and having perused the material on record, since, the facts of this case are in a very narrow compass, the undisputed facts can be summarized as under:

          (i)       The        petitioner          has         worked            as
          gardener from 1982 to 2000;

          (ii)      The services of the petitioner were
          orally terminated,                without following                  the
          due procedure;

          (iii) The        petitioner             raised        industrial
          dispute         by     giving          the     notice            dated
          29.07.2000;

          (iv)      The        Labour            Commissioner                made

Reference to the Labour Court, Amreli, in the year 2001;

(vi) The Labour Court proceeded with the Reference by permitting both the sides to lead evidence, oral as well as documentary, and without adjudicating or appreciating the same, passed the award on the basis of preliminary issue / objection for jurisdiction raised by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that Respondent No.1 is a school registered under the Act of 1972 and

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

therefore, the Labour Court will have no jurisdiction;

(vii) The petitioner, thereafter, preferred Application No. 6 of 2011 before the Education Tribunal for redressal of his grievances. However, the Education Tribunal also accepted the preliminary contention / objection raised for and on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that petitioner was not an employee of Respondent No.1, but, he was an employee of the labour contractor and therefore, the Education Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 under Section 37 of the Act of 1972;

11.1 In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the only question that arises for the consideration of this Court is what is the fault of the petitioner, who undisputedly discharged duties as a gardener with Respondent No.1-School from the year 1982 to 2000.

12. The petitioner was being tossed by the Labour Court as well as the Education Tribunal for want of jurisdiction for legitimate redressal

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

of the grievances of the petitioner for grant of compensation which he is even otherwise liable to be paid either by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 or by the contractor who according to Respondent No.1- School was the employer of the petitioner. Neither the Labour Court nor the Education Tribunal has considered this aspect and by adopting hyper - technical approach, both have rejected the Reference and the application respectively filed by the petitioner before both the forums on the ground of jurisdiction.

13. This Court in the facts of the case, therefore, made a suggestion to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner for having been sent from the Labour Court to the Education Tribunal and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 having taken a stand that the Education Tribunal would have no jurisdiction as the petitioner was an employee of the labour contractor.

14. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, it is to be decided, whether, it is Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 or the Company which gave work of contract to the contractor to employ the employees for the Company liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

15. It is true that Ultratech Cement Company Ltd. is not made a party by the petitioner in the present proceedings, and therefore, it is Respondent No.2-Trust, who is formed by the said Company to run and manage Respondent No.1-School will be liable to satisfy the claim which may arise for payment of compensation to the petitioner. It is admitted by Respondent No.2 in the application, Exhibit-6, filed before the Educational Tribunal that Respondent No.2 is created by the said Company for managing the affairs of Respondent No.1-School for the benefit of the children of employees of the said Company. It is not in dispute that the petitioner worked as gardener in Respondent No.1-School, run by Respondent No.2-Trust, which is formed by the said Company.

16. As the petitioner is languishing for the compensation for more than 21 years, since, his services as gardener were terminated in the year 2000, it would not be proper to remand the matter back either before the Labour Court or before the Education Tribunal for adjudicating the same on the merit as to whether the Labour Court will have the jurisdiction or the Education Tribunal will have jurisdiction to hear the matter. It is also not in dispute and it is admitted by the

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

witness of Respondent No.1-School before the Labour Court that the petitioner worked from 1982 to 2000 as gardener with Respondent No.1-School and after the termination of his services orally, Respondent No.1-School has employed other persons as gardener to maintain the garden of the school, since then.

17. Thus, considering the facts of the case

before the Labour Court as well as before the Education Tribunal, it will be in the fitness of the facts as well as in the interest of justice to dispose of this petition by passing the following order:

(I) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only), by way of ex gratia compensation to the petitioner for the services rendered by him as gardener from 1982 to 2000 in Respondent No.1-School;

(II) Respondent No.2-Trust shall be at liberty to recover such amount paid towards compensation to the petitioner from the Ultratech Cement Company Ltd.

C/SCA/8655/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

which has constituted Respondent No.2- Trust to run Respondent No.1-School;

(III) The amount of RS.3,00,000/- (Rupees THREE LAKH only) towards compensation shall be paid to the petitioner within the period of FOUR WEEKS from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

18. It is, hereby, made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter, as to whether, either the Labour Court will have jurisdiction or the Education Tribunal to resolve the grievances raised by the petitioner and only in view of the contrary stand taken by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before both the forums and only on humanitarian grounds, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been directed to abide by the aforesaid directions considering the services rendered by the petitioner as gardener in the premise of Respondent No.1-School from 1982 to 2000. Therefore, the decisions relied on behalf of the petitioner are not dealt with in this order. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. No order as to costs.

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) UMESH/-