Case Law Details
Shri Nand Kishore Vs Dilshad Public School (Delhi High Court)
Conclusion: The Hon’ble High Court observed that Conciliation Officer is not an Industrial Tribunal or a Labour Court and does not exercise judicial/quasi-judicial functions and/or does not adjudicate the claims of /disputes between the parties.
Facts: In present facts of the case, the Petitioner has assailed the order dated 26.07.2018, passed by the Delhi School Tribunal in Appeal No.57/2015, whereby the application filed by Respondent No.1/School under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed and the appeal filed by the Petitioner, Appellant therein was dismissed.
The Petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar-cum-Peon with Respondent No.1 on 31.03.2000, and was subsequently confirmed on the said post vide letter dated 31.03.2001. The Respondent No.1 is a recognized school and affiliated with CBSE. Pursuant to recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission (‘CPC’), Petitioner requested for revision in the pay scale. Upon failure of the School to implement the 6th CPC recommendations, in order to enforce his rights, Petitioner along with other employees filed a writ petition in this Court being W.P.(C) 6367/2014, which was allowed vide order dated 06.02.2015, directing the School to pay the difference in the salary along with arrears in accordance with 6th CPC recommendations, within six months from the date of the order. But the School did not comply with the said directions and instead terminated the services of the Petitioner vide order dated 22.08.2015, without following the due process of law. No enquiry was conducted and no opportunity was given to reply to the show cause notice dated 07.08.2015. The termination order was challenged by the Petitioner before the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), by way of an appeal bearing No.57/2015. After the pleadings were completed and the appeal was at the stage of final arguments, School filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the appeal on the ground that Petitioner had filed a claim before the Conciliation Officer under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and had withdrawn the same, without seeking liberty to file a fresh case. Petitioner also concealed the filing of the said claim before the Tribunal, which amounts to playing fraud on the Tribunal. Reply was filed by the Petitioner to the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and after hearing arguments, Tribunal allowed the application and dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 26.07.2018, which is the order impugned before this Court.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the main question arises in the present writ petition is whether the Petitioner can file an appeal before the Tribunal functioning under the DSEA&R, after having invoked the remedy under the ID Act by filing a claim before the Conciliation Officer.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
