Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1471 (DEL)

GREENFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL v. MAHENDER SINGH

2007-07-25

HIMA KOHLI

body2007
HIMA KOHLI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has impugned the award dated 4th September, 2004 passed by the Labour Court whereunder it was held that the termination of the respondent workman was done without compliance of Section 25f of the Industrial disputes Act. , 1947 (for short `the Act') and the termination order was thus inoperative. Accordingly, the award was passed in favour of the respondent workman entitling him to reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. ( 2 ) THE aforesaid award has been challenged on two counts. The first ground taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the Labour Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the industrial dispute as the respondent workman ought to have approached the appropriate authority under the Delhi School education Act, 1973, which according to the petitioner is a complete machinery that provides for an opportunity of appeal to an aggrieved employee. The other ground taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the award having been passed against the school is not sustainable, as the school is not a legal entity and that it is the society which is the legal entity and the management of the school is governed by the society. ( 3 ) A perusal of the written statement filed in reply to the statement of claim of the respondent workman shows that neither of the two pleas were taken by the petitioner before the Labour Court. In fact, the plea with regard to lack of jurisdiction under the Act was not taken by the petitioner during the time of conciliation proceedings, or at the time when a reference was made by the appropriate Government. Such an objection was not raised even at the time of addressing arguments before the Labour Court. ( 4 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plea with regard to the jurisdiction under the Act being a legal plea can be taken at any stage, is not acceptable in view of the petitioner's own conduct as indicated above. This court while exercising its powers of judicial review, must also examine the conduct of the party invoking the said powers. This court while exercising its powers of judicial review, must also examine the conduct of the party invoking the said powers. In the present case, the petitioner did not make any effort to raise the issue with regard to the maintainability of the industrial dispute before the Labour Court at any stage and instead, of its own free will and volition, participated in the proceedings. Having taken such a chance, now on being faced with an adverse order in the form of the award, the petitioner cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the said award by raising the issue with regard to jurisdiction. Thus even if the said plea of jurisdiction is available, in the present case, this court, in equity, refuses to exercise its powers of judicial review in favour of the petitioner. ( 5 ) IT may also be taken note of that the services of the respondent workman were terminated on 14th March, 1998 pursuant to which an industrial dispute was raised and a reference was made by the appropriate Government for adjudication of the said dispute to the Labour Court. Almost 8 years having passed since then, it would be unjust and inequitous to relegate the parties to a different forum now and negate the entire award on the ground of jurisdiction, more so when the said ground was never raised by the petitioner at any stage at all and has been raised for the first time in the present writ petition. ( 6 ) SAME is the case with regard to the other ground taken in the present writ petition to the effect that since the school is not a legal entity but is a society which is the legal entity, therefore the award is not sustainable against the school. The said plea can also not be permitted to be taken up at such a late stage as there is not a whisper in the written statement to show that the said plea had been raised by the petitioner before the Labour court. The petitioner willingly participated in the proceedings before the labour Court and cannot be heard to state that the award has been passed against a body which is not a legal entity. ( 7 ) NO other ground has been taken on behalf of the petitioner to assail the impugned award. The petitioner willingly participated in the proceedings before the labour Court and cannot be heard to state that the award has been passed against a body which is not a legal entity. ( 7 ) NO other ground has been taken on behalf of the petitioner to assail the impugned award. ( 8 ) IN these circumstances, this court declines to exercise its powers of judicial review in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.