LexMANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF MONTFORT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL versus SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF MONTFORT SENIOR A SECONDARY SCHOOL v. SHRI VIJA Y KUMAR AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 B [ARIJIT PASA YAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] Service Law Delhi School Education Act, 1973-Sec. 8(3), 15-Arbitration and C Conciliation Act, 1996-Sec. 8(1)-Montfort School Staff Rules 1974-Ru/es 23, JI-Termination of Respondent teacher on disciplinary grounds-Appeal pending in Tribunal-Whether dispute has to be referred for Arbitration-- Held, the provision in both remedies are similar and once a remedy under one is exhausted it is not permissihle to avail the other-Further held, the principle D of dominus litis has clear application. Words and Phrases-"Judicia/ Authority"-He/d Tribunal is a judicial authority vested with powers of civil appellate court. Respondent No.I was as Assistant Teacher in the appellant school. E His services were terminated on disciplinary grounds. An appeal was preferred before the Tribunal under Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act. The appellant filed an application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration Act for reference to an arbitrator. The Tribunal dismissed the application. rt was challenged in a writ petition which was dismissed. Before this Court, the appellant contended that Chapter V of the Act applied to un-aided minority schools and Section 15 of the Act deals with contract of service. Section 15(3)(e) deals with arbitration of dispute arising F out of any breach of contract between the employee and the managing committee with regard to certain aspects, it clearly makes arbitration G mandatory, that the school is legally bound to enter into a written contract of service with every employee, that since there is a specific provision for an arbitration and there is no dispute that a written contract of service was entered into, the Tribunal was in law required to refer the matter to an arbitrator, that Rule 24 of "Staff Rules" deals with Code of Conduct 137 H 138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A and Rule 31 contains an arbitration clause, that Chapter IV of the Act deals with terms and conditions of service of recognized private schools, that Section 12 of the Act states that the provision of Chapter IV is not applicable to un-aided minority schools, that though Section 12 of the Act was held to be discriminatory and void, yet effect of Section 15 cannot be diluted, and that though there may be two remedies available to the B dismissed employee, that is, one the appeal and the other before the arbitrator, when one of the parties, i.e. the employer wants a particular forum for adjudication there cannot be a compulsion for him to go before the forum chosen by the other party. C Dismissing the Appeals, the Court HELD: 1. In view of what has been stated in Frank Anthony's case the very nature of employment has undergone a transformation and services of the employees in minorities un-aided schools governed under Chapter-V are no longer contractual in nature but they are statutory. The D qualifications, leaves, salaries, age of retirement, pension, dismissal, removal, reduction in rank, suspension and other conditions of service are to be governed exclusively under the statutory regime provided in Chapter IV. The Tribunal constituted. under Section 11 is the forum provided for ·enforcing some of these rights. If an employee seeks to enforce rights and obligations created under Chapter IV, a remedy is available to him to get E an adjudication in the manner provided in Chapter IV by the prescribed forum i.e. the Tribunal. That being so, the Tribunal cannot and in fact has no power and jurisdiction to hear the appeal on merits and the only way is to ask the parties to go for arbitration. (147-C-FI F Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1987) SC 311; The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society and Arir. v. State of Gujarat and Anr., AIR (1974) SC 1389 and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bomaby and Ors., [1976] 1 sec 496, relied on. G 2. Even if there are plural or multiple remedies available, the principle of dominus litis has clear application. (147-H] Dhannalal v. Kalawathi Bai, (2002] 6 SCC 16 and Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, (1974] 2 SCC 393 referred to. H 3. The expression 'Judicial Authority' has not been defined under '< ' MANAGEMENTCOMMITIEEOFMONTFORTSENIOR SEC. SCHOOL•· VIJAY KUMAR J 39 the said Act. The Tribunal is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.