KAPOOR CHAND Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal question that arises for decision in this writ petition is if a driver and a conductor of a school bus are employees within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') and, if so, whether they are entitled to salaries, allowances and other prescribed benefits, if any, as required under Section 10 of the Act. Under Section 2(h) of the Act, an 'employee' means a teacher and includes every other employee working in a recognised school. Section 10 of the Act reads as under :-

(2.) . Nine petitioners, 4 drivers and 5 conductors of school buses, owned and run by the second respondent school, which is a recognised school under the Act, have filed the present petition. They claim parity in their pay with the drivers and conductors of the Delhi Administration. One of the petitioners, a driver, died during the pendency of this petition and his legal representatives have been brought on record. There are three respondents. The first respondent is the Delhi Administration which, in effect, is the appropriate authority within the meaning of Clause (e) of Section 2 of the Act. The second respondent, as noted above, is the school in question, and the third respondent is the Society which runs the school. When originally the petition was filed, there were only two respondents, the school and the Delhi Administration. Objection was raised by the school that it was being run and owned by the Society which had not been impleaded as a party. The petition was. therefore, sought to be amended and the Society was made as the third respondent. The Society then raised an objection that managing committee of the school was different from the Society and that managing committee was also a necessary party. 'Managing committee' has been defined in Section 2(n) of the Act to mean the body of individuals who are entrusted with the management of any recognised private school. Mr.A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the school and the Society, however, did not press his objection that managing committee should have been impleaded as a party. In these proceedings, therefore, I would take it that the Society also represents the managing committee of the school as well.

(3.) It is not disputed before me that the petitioners are the drivers and conductors of the school buses of the second respondent and would fulfil the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 pertaining to a driver and a conductor. It is also not disputed that the respondent school has four buses which are exempt from payment of road tax under the aforesaid Motor Vehicles Act being buses owned by the school for the students. It is also not disputed that the second respondent is a recognised and aided school receiving aid in the form of maintenance grant from the first respondent.