MUKUL MUDGAL
APEEJAY SCHOOL – Appellant
Versus
GOPI CHAND – Respondent
( 1 ) ALLOWED, subject to all just exceptions. WP (C) NO. 2133/2000: 1. Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is a school covered by the provisions of the Delhi School education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Education Act ). The respondent No. 1 sought a reference to the Labour Court on the basis of a complaint arising from the termination of his services. On 23. 6. 1992 a reference in the following terms was made by the Secretary (Labour ).
"whether the services of Sh. Gopi Chanda have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that this writ petition raises the question as to whether the making of a reference for adjudication is barred by the provisions of the education Act. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Shri H. L. Tikku has cited a judgment of this Court in Amar Nath v. Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. , 2003 (71) DRJ 673 wherein in paragraphs 3 and 4, it was held as follows:
"3. Learned Cou
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.