DHARAM VIR Vs. BGS INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant petition, the petitioners who were employed as Drivers by the respondent No.1/School, assail the order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal in short 'The Tribunal' during the proceedings of the execution of the order dated 31.01.2017 and the notice dated 27.06.2017 issued by the respondent/School.

(2.) Concisely, the case of the petitioners is that when they approached this court for implementation of the 6th Pay Commission Recommendations sometime in the year 2015, they came to be terminated without following the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 in short 'the DSEAR'. Being aggrieved thereof, they preferred an appeal under Section 8(3) of the DSEAR. The appeal so made was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 31.01.2017 with a direction for reinstatement of the petitioners within one month. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent No.1 preferred WP(C) No.1902/2017 BGS International Public School and Ors. vs. Dharamvir and Ors. and that was disposed of vide order dated 17.03.2017 with the liberty to the respondent No.1/School to take action against the instant petitioners in accordance with law and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It appears that thereafter, the respondent No.1 issued notice of retrenchment dated 27.06.2017 under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act in short 'the ID Act', on the plea that it was suffering heavy financial losses and on account of non feasibility of running the transport services, the transport facility provided to the students had been withdrawn, for which, the petitioners had come to be appointed as school bus drivers. After the issuance of such notices, in the proceedings initiated by the petitioners for execution of the order 31.01.2017, the impugned order dated 20.12.2018 came to be passed, and, thereby, the execution petition was disposed of, with the observations and the directions contained therein. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition.

(3.) During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners, on being specifically queried as to whether the appeal preferred by the petitioners, who were the drivers and not the teachers, could maintain the appeal before the Tribunal inasmuch as the jurisdiction to entertain their grievance would fall within the purview of the ID Act. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner was at pains to contend otherwise. The aspect of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal preferred by the petitioners of course goes to the root of the matter. In the impugned order, the Tribunal adverting to the order passed by this court on 17.03.2017 and certain payments sought to be made by the respondent-School, has observed as follows: