DHARAM PAL Vs. PRINCIPAL & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed WP(C) No. 7210/2009 in this court challenging the direction contained in a letter dated 18.2.2009 of the Principal of Respondent No.1 Modern School requiring him to deposit on or before 28th February, 2009 a copy of the Certificate of having passed the 10th Class examination of the Uttar Pradesh Board, indicating his date of birth.

(2.) The appellant was, at the time of filing of the writ petition, working with the Respondent No.1 Modern School as a Lab Attendant, a Class-IV post. He stated that he was the President of the Modern School Karmachari Samiti and used to take up the cases of the grievances of the workmen. The appellant stated that he had submitted to Respondent No. 1 the certificate of his educational qualifications by a letter dated 7.2.1983. The certificate issued to him by the Hindu Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag (Allahabad) in which his date of birth is shown as 1.1.1953 was enclosed with the said letter. He was asked by Respondent No. 1 to file his personal details in a prescribed form on 21.5.1988. This was also complied with.

(3.) According to the appellant, all of a sudden on 18.2.2009, the impugned letter was issued by Respondent No. 1. In this letter it was stated that a police verification of the particulars furnished by the appellant at the time of seeking employment, had been called for by Respondent No. 1 by a letter dated 29.3.1978. The police verification showed that as on 29.3.1978 the appellant's age was 30 years. He had, in his application dated 23.11.1979 for appointment to the post of Lab Attendant, indicated that his educational qualification was 10th pass (Science) from the UP Board. He had, however, not furnished copies of those certificates. The letter dated 18.2.2009 stated that since on the basis of the police verification letter dated 29.3.1978 the appellant's age was 60 years, he should furnish the Respondent No. 1 School a copy of the certificate issued by the UP Board indicating his date of birth. 4 In its counter affidavit before the learned single Judge, the Respondent No.1 School raised a preliminary objection as regards maintainability on the ground that an alternative efficacious remedy was available to the appellant under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). Accepting this objection, the learned single Judge held that since the appellant satisfied the definition of "workman? under Section 2(k) of the ID Act, he had an efficacious remedy available to him under the ID Act. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed "with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy by invoking the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 within two weeks from today." The learned single Judge observed that the concerned Court should decide the appellant's application for stay of the order dated 18.2.2009 within six weeks. It was further directed that the interim order dated 2.3.2009 passed by the Court would remain operative for a period of six weeks thereafter and that the concerned Court would decide the stay application uninfluenced by the said interim order.