MANJIT KAUR Vs. GURU SINGH SABHA KHALSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court whereby the Labour Court rejected her claim on the ground that the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) The petitioner worked with the respondent as an Assistant Teacher from 01st March, 1972 to 01st August, 1980. The respondent was an unrecognized school at the time of petitioners appointment. The respondent school subsequently applied for recognition whereupon the Education Department, MCD raised an objection that the petitioner does not have requisite qualification for the job of the Assistant teacher and was over-age. The respondent approached Education Department, MCD for relaxation of her qualification/age which was rejected. The respondent terminated the service of the petitioner whereupon the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court.

(3.) The respondent contested the statement of claim on the ground that the respondent is a recognized charitable School governed by Delhi Education Code and Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the claim is barred by the provisions of Delhi Education Code. The respondent claimed that the school was being run with funds advanced to it by Gurudwara Managing Committee and was not run on commercial basis and was not covered by the definition of 'Industry'. On merits, it was submitted that the respondent School was not recognized at the time of the petitioners appointment. The respondent School subsequently applied for recognition whereupon the Education Department, MCD before granting the recognition raised an objection that the petitioner does not have requisite qualification for a job of an Assistant Teacher and was over-age. The respondent informed the petitioner about the objection of the Education Department, MCD whereupon the respondent approached Education Department, MCD for relaxation of her qualification and over-age which was not accepted. The petitioner approached the Education Department, MCD but the Education Department, MCD refused to grant relaxation in age and requisite qualification. The minimum qualification of an Assistant Teacher was higher secondary with two years basic training from a recognized institution for appointment of a basic teacher and maximum age was 30 years whereas the petitioner was more than 30 years of age and did not possess the minimum qualifications of higher secondary with two years basic training from a recognized institution. The respondent informed the petitioner vide letter dated 23rd September, 1978 to submit her proof of age and qualifications to Education Department, MCD. However, the petitioner did not comply with the said letter as she did not fulfill the basic requirements. The petitioner admitted in her reply dated 20th October, 1978 and representation dated 09th April, 1979 to the Education Department, MCD that she did not fulfill the mandatory requirements regarding her education and age. The petitioner did not furnish any proof of satisfaction of the mandatory requirements in response to the letter dated 23rd September, 1978 and therefore, her services were not continued.