Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. -- The petitioner school has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 26th November, 1999 of the Labour Court in a reference of an industrial dispute at the instance of the respondents 1 to 3. The respondents 1 to 3 claimed to be the employees (non-teaching) of the petitioner school and contended that the petitioner was neither issuing them identity cards nor giving them any legal benefits and asking them to render duties under fictitious names and on their refusal to do so, the petitioner school had refused work to them.

2. The petitioner contended before the Labour Court that it was a recognized private unaided school within the meaning of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (School Act) ; that Section 8 (3) of the said Act provides the remedy of appeal before the Delhi School Education Tribunal (School Tribunal) to any employee of the school against any order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank; that in view of the existence of the specific remedy provided in the School Act, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

3. The Labour Court vide order impugned in this petition held that though the respondents may be having the right of appeal before the School Tribunal but they also had the right to challenge their termination on the various grounds available to them under the Industrial Disputes Act (I.D. Act). It was further held that the right of appeal before the School Tribunal did not debar the employee of a school from raising a dispute under the I.D. Act. Aggrieved therefrom the present petition was preferred. This Court vide ex parte order dated 23rd December, 1999 which continues to be in force, while issuing notice of the petition stayed further proceedings before the Labour Court. The respondents failed to appear inspite of notice. Rule was issued on 25th September, 2000 and the interim order made absolute. The respondents have not appeared thereafter also.

4. The petition was however dismissed for non prosecution on 4th January, 2007. CMs No.1524-25/2010 have been filed by the petitioner for restoration and for condonation of delay in applying for the same. Notice of the said applications was also issued to the respondents and served. The respondents still failed to appear. In the circumstances, the respondents were proceeded against ex parte on 21st April, 2010 and the senior counsel for the petitioner heard on the applications. The applications for condonation of delay in applying for restoration and for restoration of the writ petition were allowed on 21st April, 2010 and the senior counsel for the petitioner heard on merits.

5. The senior counsel for the petitioner on that date contended that till prior to the setting up of the School Tribunal, the Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction. He further contended that the School Tribunal had been set up as per the directions of the Supreme Court contained in para 64 of the judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka 2002 (8) SCC 481. It was / is the contention of the senior counsel for the petitioner that considering the status of the educational institutions and the nature of duties which employees and teachers of educational institutions are required to perform, need was felt for setting up of the School Tribunal and directions in this regard were issued. It was further contended that the very fact that the Supreme Court directed the setting up of the School Tribunals inspite of the remedy under the I.D. Act and/or the Civil Court being available, was indicative that after the setting up of the School Tribunal, the same has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between a School and its employees/teachers.

6. The senior counsel for the petitioner had on that date also invited attention to:

(i) Kathuria Public School Vs. Director of Education 123(2005) DLT 89 (DB) where the Division Bench of this Court in para 42 of the judgment reiterated that the School Tribunal is a