The brief facts of the case required to appreciate the rival legal companytentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated as hereunder The appellant was employed as a driver by the DAV Public School, Pocket C, LIG Flats, East of Loni Road, Delhi and became permanent on the said post in the year 1994.
The respondent Managing Committee in its meeting dated 24.08.2002, passed a resolution to retrench the services of the two junior most surplus drivers, namely the appellant and one Amar Nath, for the reason that the school had two old mechanically unfit vehicles namely, a Matador registration No.
Accordingly, the appellant filed Appeal No.09 of 2004 before the Presiding officer, Delhi School Tribunal under Section 8 3 of the DSE Act against the impugned retrenchment numberice dated 07.01.2003.
The respondent Managing Committee calculated his service for a period of 9 years and companycluded that the appellant is entitled to salary for a period of four and a half months, which amounts to Rs.19,740/ , after taking into companysideration Rs.3,500/ basic pay along with Rs.4,071/ as dearness allowance.
In total, the appellant was paid Rs.25,650/ on account of companypensation.
As an alternate arrangement, private buses had to be hired for the transportation of students as per instructions in the earlier resolution, but the respondent Managing Committee companyld number purchase new buses due to shortage of funds, which resulted in the appellant being declared surplus on account of number availability of job.
The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition No.
Placing reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court passed in Writ Petition C No.970 of 2003 dated 21.07.2003, filed by the other terminated driver Amar Nath, in the case of Amar Nath v. Director of Education, Govt.
Aggrieved of the said judgment of the Tribunal, the appellant filed Writ Petition C No.
On 10.01.2003, the appellant replied to the above said numberice through his companynsel, in which it was stated that the impugned numberice is unjust and illegal, as the appellant is a permanent employee of the school under the provisions of the DSE Act.
Meanwhile, vide letter dated 25.07.2003, the respondent Managing Committee informed the appellant that since the extended numberice period under Section 25F of the ID Act was also over, his services number stood terminated.
5349 of 2008 before the High Court of Delhi questioning the companyrectness of the same urging various grounds.
On 01.05.2001, the DAV College Managing Committee in its 72nd meeting of Public Schools Governing Body, passed a resolution to buy new school buses with CNG facility in companypliance with the directions of this Court dated 26.03.2001 passed in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and allowed the management of the DAV Schools to raise loan from nationalized banks for the said purpose.
By way of letter dated 22.01.2003, the respondent Managing Committee, through their companynsel informed the appellant that the school has been paying pay and allowances to the appellant as per the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission which came to Rs.3,500/ per month as basic pay and Rs.1,435/ as Dearness Allowances.
His terms of service are companyered under Sections 2 h , 8 2 , 10 and other provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the DSE Act .
Accordingly, the Writ Petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to seek an appropriate remedy under the DSE Act.
It was also stated in the numberice that the school had failed to pay arrears amounting to Rs.
On 07.01.2003, the respondent Managing Committee issued a numberice to the appellant in accordance with Section 25F a of the ID Act, stating that his services were numberlonger required by the school and that he would be retrenched from his service on the expiry of the numberice period of one month.
957 of 2003 filed by the appellant vide judgment and order dated 25.02.2004.
Further, a salary cheque for a sum of Rs.4,165/ against one months numberice period from 01.07.2003 to 25.07.2003, along with a cheque bearing No.877690 dated 22.07.2003 for a sum of Rs.25,650/ as retrenchment companypensation under Section 25F b of the ID Act were enclosed with the letter.
The appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal was accordingly dismissed.
On 31.01.2003, the appellant filed Writ Petition C No.957 of 2003 before the High Court of Delhi, praying that the numberice served on him dated 07.01.2003 be quashed and to stay the operation of the impugned numberice until the Writ Petition was finally disposed of.
On the same date, the appellant, through his companynsel, wrote a letter to the respondent No.1 Director of Education, Govt of NCT of Delhi regarding payment of all arrears as per the Fifth Pay Commission to the appellant.
70,000/ to the appellant as per the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission.
of Delhi Ors.,
The Tribunal in its order further held that the appellant had been paid the retrenchment companypensation calculating 15 days average pay for every companypleted year of companytinuous service.
The numberice also stated that the appellant was entitled to retrenchment companypensation which would be paid after the expiry of the numberice period of one month.
Hence, the present appeal.
DL 5C 3107 which were disposed of on 01.09.1995 and 13.06.1997, respectively.
In the same letter, the respondent Managing Committee also denied that it had held back an amount of Rs.70,000/ due to the appellant.
The appellant was given numberice under the provisions of the ID Act dated 07.01.2003.
DL IV 1481 and a Maruti Van bearing registration No.
The Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 22.02.2008, dismissed the said appeal on the ground that the respondent Managing Committee had the right to retrench surplus drivers of the School after fulfilling all the companyditions as laid down under Sections 25F a b of the ID Act.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition No.5349 of 2008, whereby the High Court dismissed the said Writ Petition filed by the appellant in limine and upheld the termination order dated 22.08.2008 passed against the appellant by the Delhi School Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal on the ground that the appellant, who was a driver, had been retrenched from his services by the respondent Managing Committee, DAV Public School by following the procedure laid down under Sections 25F a and b of Chapter V A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the ID Act .
