LexRAJ KUMAR versus DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 1 S.C.R. 697
RAJ KUMAR
v.
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.1020 of2011)
APRIL 13, 2016
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.)
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
Chapter V-A, s. 25F (a), (b) - Delhi School Education Act,
1973 - ss. 2(h), 8(2), JO - Retrenchment - Challenge to -Appel/ant-
permanent driver in a public school, having become surplus,
retrenched from services by respondent-Managing Committee of the
School - Issuance of notice to the appellant in accordance with s.
25F (a) and retrenchment compensation - Tribunal and the High
Court held that the appellant was retrenched from the services by
the Managing Committee following the procedure laid down u/s.
25F (a) and {b) - On appeal, held: Driver employed by a school,
being a skilled person, is a workman for the purpose of the 1947 ·
Act - Notice for retrenchment was served on. the appellant on
07.01.2003, however, no evidence to show that notice of the
retrenchment was sent to the appropriate authority even till date -
Thus, the mandatory conditions of s. 25F to retrench a workman
was not complied with - Notice of retrenchment and the order of
retrenchment set aside - Further, the Managing Committee did not
obtain prior approval of the order of termination passed against
the appellant from the Director of Education as required uls.8(2) of
the DSE Act - No evidence to show that the retrenchment of the
appellam was necessary as he had become 'surplus' - Thus, the
termination of the appellant is bad in law for non-compliance with
the mandatory provisions of s. 25F and also s. 8(2) of the DSE Act
- Management to re-instate the appellant at his post with back wages
- Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 - r. 76(a).
s. 25F {a),{b),{c) - Condition prescribed for retrenchment of
work as prescribed u/s. 25F {a), {b), {c) - Directory or mandatory -
Held: Section 25F(c} is a condition subsequent, but is still a
mandatory condition required to be fulfilled by the employers before
the order of retrenchment of the workman is passed.
697
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
698
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] I S.C.R.
Delhi School Education Act, 1973 - s. 8(2) - Compliance of
- Requirement - Appellant-permanent driver in a public school,
having become surplus, retrenched from services by respondent-
Managing Committee of the School - Submission that Managing
Committee before terminating services of appellant did not comply
with the mandatory provision of s. 8(2), holding that s. 8(2) was
struck down in Kathuria case - Held: Section 8(2) is a procedural
safeguard in favour of an employee to ensure that an order of
termination or dismissal is not passed without the prior approval of
the Director of Education, to avoid arbitrary or unreasonable
termination - High Court erred in striking down s. 8(2) in Kathuria
Public School's case and is bad in law - Furthermore, notice of
retrenchment was served on the appellant on 07. 01.2003 and was
retrenched from service on 25. 07.2003 - Decision in Kathuria Public
School's case striking down s. 8(2) was rendered two years later
and respondents could not have foreseen thats. 8(2) would be struck
down later and thus, decided not to comply with it - Section 8(2)
was very much a valid provision of the statute on the date of the
retrenchment of the appellant - Rights and liabilities of the parties
to the suit must be considered in accordance with the law as on the
date of the institution of the suit - Thus, the termznatio11 order was
bad in law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The retrenchment of the appellant from service
as also termination order is bad in law. The judgment and order
passed by the High Court is set aside. (Para 37) [726-B-C]
2. A perusal of the *HR Adyanthaya case and ••Bangalore
Water Supply case clearly shows that a driver employed by a
school, being a skilled person, is a workman for the purpose of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of ID Act are
applicable to the facts of the instant case. [Para 20) (713-C]
*RR. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd (1997) 5 SCC
737; ••Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board
v. A. Rajappa & Ors. 1978 (3) SCR 207: (1978) 2 SCC
213 - relied on.
3.1 The reasoning adopted by the tribunal as well as the
High Court cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the notice under
RAJ KUMAR v. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
Section 25F(c) of the ID Act has not been se.rved upon the State
GovernmeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.