SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Del) 148

MUKUL MUDGAL
APEEJAY SCHOOL – Appellant
Versus
GOPI CHAND – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, H.L.TIKKU, T.A.FRANCIS, YASHMIT KAUR

Mukul Mudgal, J.

( 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











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top