PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Reference has been made to a larger Bench by the learned Single Judge vide order dated March 27, 2015 noting a conflict between opinions expressed by two learned Single Judges of this Court in the decision reported as The Manager Arya Samaj Girls Higher Secondary School & Another vs. Sunrita Thakur, (1991) 43 DLT 139 and the decision dated January 17, 2006 in W.P. (C) No. 7617/2000 The Managing Committee Heera Lal Jain vs. Shri Chander Gupt Sharma & Others. The former decision holds that the Delhi School Tribunal constituted under Section 11 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, does not have the power to decide the issue of back wages to be paid for the period interregnum an employee of a recognized school is compulsorily retired from service till reinstatement and that matters regarding payment of salary and allowances to such employee on reinstatement is regulated by Rule 121 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973; as per which the necessary decision has to be taken by the Managing Committee of the school. The latter view holds to the contrary. The reference therefore would be whether the Delhi School Tribunal has the power, while reinstating in service an employee of a recognized school who has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired from service to make any order with regard to the salary and allowances to be paid to the employee for the period of his absence of duty as also whether said period shall be treated as period spent on duty.

2. At the outset we note that the two conflicting decisions concern schools recognized by the Appropriate Authority under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and both schools were governed by the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. The issue of applicability of the Act and the Rules to unaided schools established by minority communities was not an issue in the two decisions. The writ petitioner is a recognized unaided minority school and thus, though not a part of the reference made by the learned Single Judge, since the issue arising out of the two conflicting views by two learned Single Judges of this Court enwombs an unaided minority school, the learned counsel for the parties addressed arguments on said ancillary issue which is tied with an umbilical cord to the main issue. Thus while answering the reference we express our opinion on the said ancillary issue as well.

3. Though not relevant for the purpose of answering the reference, the backdrop facts are being noted because sans the backdrop facts noted in an opinion, its contextual setting may be blurred.

4. The second respondent was appointed as a PGT (Chemistry) by the Guru Harkishan Public School, admittedly a minority institution, on July 02, 1984. As per the school, on January 22, 1994 the respondent No.2 not only misbehaved but even molested a newly married employee of the school in full public view and when the tormented lady complained to the principal of the school, on being summoned the said respondent not only profusely apologized but to save his honour and respect so that no stigma was cast tendered a voluntary resignation on January 22, 1994 and requested the principal of the school to accept the same forthwith. The principal forwarded the letter of resignation to the Chairperson of the Managing Committee of the School who accepted the same; and thus ceased the employer-employee relationship between the school and the second respondent. The respondent No.2 disputes the version and claims that the resignation was the result of coercion and that the letter of resignation was withdrawn the next day on January 23, 1994 before it could be acted upon. He also questions the competence of the Chairperson of the Managing Committee of the school to accept the same. It is in this backdrop that appeal No.14/1994 fell in the lap of the Delhi School Education Tribunal for decision. Unfortunately, the appeal came to be decided after 17