NEW SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the instant petition is to the order dated 28.11.2018 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Educational Tribunal, Punjab and in terms of which the petitioner school has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakh each to private respondents no.3 to 6 by holding their termination to be wrongful.

(2.) Brief facts that would require notice are that the petitioner is a private educational institution not receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Govt. Respondents no.3 to 6 having applied for the post of teachers, were so appointed and joined on 7.9.1987, 10.4.1992, 19.7.1971 and 6.5.1983 respectively. Their services were terminated vide orders dated 9/11.4.1997 placed on record at Annexure P-2 (colly). Such action was assailed by the private respondents by filing CWP-10437-1997 and the writ petition was dismissed on 17.5.2013. LPA-1799-2013 was preferred and the same was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 14.1.2014 granting liberty to the appellants (private respondents herein) to approach the Educational Tribunal. In terms of liberty granted, private respondents filed a petition/application before the Educational Tribunal, Punjab assailing the action of the petitioner school in having terminated their services. Such petition/application stands decided in terms of impugned order dated 28.11.2018 (Annexure P-10) and granting relief as afore-noticed.

(3.) Counsel representing the petitioner school has argued that the Writ Court while dismissing CWP-10437-1997 that had been filed by the private respondents, had held that the termination orders of the petitioner can only be seen as a violation of a breach of contract of service which is personal in nature and such finding has not been set aside by the Letters Patent Bench. It is sought to be contended that under such circumstances the Educational Tribunal could not have entertained a challenge against the action of termination on merits and on such ground alone the impugned order at Annexure P-10 cannot sustain. It has also been argued that the private respondents were terminated as there were complaints against them regarding the teaching work, checking of home work and indiscipline in the classes as also on account of certain misconduct. Under such circumstances the petitioner school was well within its rights to have dispensed with the services of the private respondents, who were working as teachers. It is asserted that certain documents had been placed on record before the Tribunal as Annexures R-1 to R-27 containing complaints, adverse A.C.Rs, warnings etc. that had been issued to the private respondents but such aspect has been completely overlooked by the Tribunal. Yet another submission raised by counsel is that the services of the private respondents were dispensed with in the year 1997 and it stands to reason that they had been gainfully employed elsewhere for all these years and as such the order of the Tribunal directing compensation of Rs.2 lakh each in their favour is unwarranted.