SUNIL SIKRI versus GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 11 S.C.R. 505 · Decided: 28-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
505
   [2022] 11 S.C.R. 505
505
SUNIL SIKRI
v.
GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5562 of 2017)
JULY 28, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Delhi School Education Act, 1973 – ss. 8 & 11 – Whether
there is any express power under Sections 8 and 11 to order back
wages – Held: Having regard to the words used in Section 11(6) of
the Act, it may not be appropriate to describe the provision as
conferring express power with the Tribunal to pass an award of
back wages – Therefore, the respondent is right in contending that
Section 8 read with Section 11 of the Act do not confer an express
power with the Tribunal to order back wages.
Delhi School Education Act, 1973 – ss. 8 & 11 – Delhi
Education Rules, 1973 – rr. 115, 117, 120 & 121 – Is Rule 121
ultra vires to ss. 8 and 11 – Held: The management is given the
powers coupled with the duty to hold an inquiry and to pass an
order as to whether the employee must be found to be on duty or
not and for what period during his absence – The Lawgiver has
conferred a power with the management – The use of the words “in
its opinion” indicates that the Managing Committee must apply its
mind and consider all aspects and take a view – This must,
undoubtedly, be done after putting the employee on notice – The
employee must be afforded an opportunity – The employee would
be in a position to point out that he was not employed elsewhere –
He would also be able to establish that he was fully exonerated –
The order of the appellate authority in an appeal directing
reinstatement may not be final as it can be impugned in the higher
forum – Therefore, it may not be appropriate or apposite to find
that Rule 121 is in any manner ultra vires Sections 8 and 11 of the
Act.
Delhi School Education Act, 1973 – ss. 8 & 11 – Delhi
Education Rules, 1973 – rr. 115, 117, 120 & 121 – Is there any
conflict between Sections 8 and 11 on the one hand and Rule 121
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
on the other hand – Held: Rule 121 is part of a scheme, which
consists of both Sections 8 and 11 of the Act as also Rules 115(4)
and 121 – The Rules have been enacted in the same year within
eight months – The Administrator, who has authored the Rules under
Section 28 of the Act, has produced the Rules, which are found to
be in harmony with the Act – There is no inconsistency between
Section 8 read with Section 11 on the one hand and Rule 121 on the
other.
Delhi School Education Act, 1973 – ss. 8 & 11 – Delhi
Education Rules, 1973 – rr. 115, 117, 120 & 121 – Whether the
tribunal has incidental and ancillary power to direct payment of
pay and allowance on setting aside the order of termination – Held:
Rule 121(1)(a) contemplates that the Managing Committee must
consider and pass an order and provide for salary and allowances
to be paid to the reinstated employees – Tribunal is not clothed with
specific powers to grant relief of payment of the allowances –
Tribunal is also not empowered to deal with the question as to whether
the employee must be treated as on duty for the period when the
employee remains absent on account of both the absence, whether
or not, on account of suspension before the termination and
compelled absence after the penalty is imposed – The Full Bench of
the High Court in the impugned judgment declared that The Manager
Arya Samaj Girls Higher Secondary School & Anr. v. Sunrita Thakur
correctly lays down the law regarding rule 121 – No fault with the
view taken by the Full Bench of the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The first question, whether the argument of the
respondent that Sections 8 and 11 do not contain any express
provision for ordering back wages is correct? In this context the
contention of the appellant that the law giver has created a right
of appeal before the Tribunal and it is to act armed with the wide
powers of the court of appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure.
As far as Section 8(2) is concerned, the provision proscribes
dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or the termination
otherwise of an employee except with the prior approval of the
Director. This is indeed to safeguard the right of the employee.
Section 8(3) gives the right to an employee limited under the
statute to one who has been dismissed, removed or reduced in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
507
rank to file an appeal before the Tribunal constituted under
Section 11. We have already noticed the view taken by this court
in Shashi 

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