KAILASH SINGH versus THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, MAYO COLLEGE, AJMER & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 881 · Decided: 31-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
881
KAILASH SINGH
v.
THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, MAYO COLLEGE,
AJMER & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6409 of 2017)
AUGUST 31, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act,
1989:
s.18 – Dismissal of service – By unaided non-Governmental
educational institution (respondent) – By unanimous resolution
passed by Board of Governors – Dismissal order challenged by
appellant-employees – Education Tribunal directed reinstatement
of the employees – Single Judge of High Court upheld the order of
reinstatement – Division Bench of High Court held that the
management lost confidence in the appellant-employees, and non-
compliance of second Proviso clause (iii) to s.18 was only a technical
defect – Relief of reinstatement was modified to compensation
equalling five years salary on the basis of last pay and allowances
drawn by them on the date of termination of service together with
all retiral benefits – Appeal by the employees – Held:In the case of
private institution, relationship between the management and the
employees is contractual in nature – Relationship between the
parties is one of contract – Conduct of the appellant-employees
have resulted in loss of confidence – There can be no question of
reinstatement in such case – The only remedy is by determining the
compensation as there was violation of provisions of s.18 in not
obtaining consent of Director of Education in writing –
Compensation amount is enhanced.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Persons employed in educational institutions right
from Class IV staff to the highest level have a far greater
responsibility on account of the nature of activity which takes
place in these institutions – Education.  There are students of all
ages, starting from younger ones to older teenagers, who are
studying and living in these campuses.  It is a different kind of
881
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 881
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
882
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
‘Gurukul’.  Thus, anything which is done, as would cause an
adverse impact on the mind of these young people, is something
which cannot be approved, even if it is claimed as a right to make
certain demands. The mode and methodology of making demands
in these educational institutions cannot be at par with an industrial
establishment, where workmen agitate for their rights.  This is
also in the background of the Management apparently claiming
that they were not averse to the principal demand of bonus, but
that they were waiting for the necessary Government decision,
in that behalf. [Para 16]  [890-D-F]
2.1 There was a complete lack of confidence in the
employees, by the Board of Governors.  The decision by the Board
of Governors, which is really the Managing Committee as defined
under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational
Institutions Act, 1989 was a unanimous one as provided in sub-
clause (iii) of the second proviso to Section 18 of the said Act,
and even the required salary was paid, albeit in two instalments.
However, the Management did commit a legal default in not
obtaining the consent of the Director of Education in writing. The
College in question is a recognised institution but is not financially
aided in any manner by the Central or the State Government.
[Para 18]  [891-B-C, D]
2.2  In the case of private unaided educational institutions,
its essence is in the autonomy that the institution must enjoy in
its management and administration.  Thus, while in a government-
aided institution, the Government may have a greater say in the
administration, while in the case of unaided institutions, maximum
autonomy in day-to-day administration is to be with the private
unaided institution.  In the case of a private institution, the
relationship between the management and the employees is
contractual in nature.  The facts of the present case are covered
by the master-servant relationship.  The relationship between
the parties is one of contract.  The present case is one where the
conduct of the appellants cannot be said to be such that would
not result in loss of confidence. [Paras 19, 22 and 27] [891-G;
892-B-C; 894-E-F; 897-C]
2.3 There can be no question of reinstatement in such a
case, but the only remedy is by determining the compensation to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
883
be paid to the appellants, in view of the Management not having
complied with the legal requirement of obtaining the consent of
the Director of Education in writing. [Para 18]  [891-E]
2.4 The pr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.