Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JYOTI SINGH, J.
Nand Kishore – Petitioner
Versus
Dilshad Public School and Another – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 10468 of 2018
Decided On : 09-12-2022
Concealment of Material Fact - Employment Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Delhi School Education Act and Rules - Section 12 of the ID Act, Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC - The court examined the nature of proceedings before a Conciliation Officer and the applicability of Order XXIII Rule 4 CPC. It held that the Conciliation Officer does not exercise judicial/quasi-judicial functions and the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer cannot be termed as a 'suit'. The court also found that the non-disclosure of filing the claim before the Conciliation Officer did not amount to concealment of a material fact leading to the dismissal of the Appeal. The matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for hearing on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, employed as a chowkidar-cum-peon, had his services terminated by the School. He filed a claim before the Conciliation Officer under the ID Act, which was later withdrawn without seeking permission to take recourse to another remedy. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not maintainable due to non-disclosure of the claim before the Conciliation Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer cannot be termed as a 'suit' and the non-disclosure of filing the claim before the Conciliation Officer did not amount to concealment of a material fact leading to the dismissal of the Appeal. The matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for hearing on merits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Petitioner could file an appeal before the Tribunal after invoking the remedy under the ID Act by filing a claim before the Conciliation Officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Conciliation Officer does not exercise judicial/quasi-judicial functions and the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer cannot be termed as a 'suit'. It also found that the non-disclosure of filing the claim before the Conciliation Officer did not amount to concealment of a material fact leading to the dismissal of the Appeal.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for hearing on merits.
JUDGMENT :
JYOTI SINGH, J.
1. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing the order dated 26.07.2018, passed by the Delhi School Tribunal in Appeal No. 57/2015, whereby the application filed by Respondent No. 1/School under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed and the appeal filed by the Petitioner, Appellant therein is dismissed.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the factual score to the extent relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present writ petition and as captured therein is:
(B) Respondent No. 1 is a recognized school and affiliated with CBSE. Pursuant to recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission (‘CPC’) Petitioner requested for revision in the pay scale. Upon failure of the School to implement the 6th CPC recommendations, in order to enforce his rights, Petitioner along with other employees filed a writ petition in this Court being W.P. (C) 6367/2014, which was allowed vide order dated 06.02.2015, directing the School to pay the difference in the salary along with arrears in accordance with 6th CPC recommendations, within six months from the date of the order.
(C) School did not comply with the said directions and instead terminated the services of the Petitioner vide order dated 22.08.2015, without following the due process of law. No enquiry was conducted and no opportunity was given to reply to the show-cause notice dated 07.08.2015. The termination order was challenged by the Petitioner before the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), by way of an appeal bearing No. 57/2015.
(D) After the pleadings were completed and the appeal was at the stage of final arguments, School filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the appeal on the ground that Petitioner had filed a claim before the Conciliation Officer under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ID Act’) and had withdrawn the same, without seeking liberty to file a fresh case. Petitioner also concealed the filing of the said claim before the Tribunal, which amounts to playing fraud on the Tribunal.
(E) Reply was filed by the Petitioner to the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and after hearing arguments, Tribunal allowed the application and dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 26.07.2018, which is the order impugned before this Court.
3. Contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner:
(b) There is a clear distinction between proceedings in a Court and those before a Conciliation Officer. The interim or the final verdict given by a Court binds the parties thereto, while in conciliation proceedings, no verdict is delivered and in fact, Conciliation Officer cannot even compel the parties to settle. In the present case, no claim/proceedings were filed before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal and the statement of claim was withdrawn before the Conciliation Officer, at a very early stage.
(c) In Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. Meeru
The nature of proceedings before a Conciliation Officer and the applicability of Order XXIII Rule 4 CPC in cases where a claim is filed before the Conciliation Officer.
Conciliation Officers do not adjudicate disputes, making withdrawal of claims before them not binding; failing to disclose such withdrawal does not constitute material concealment justifying dismissa....
Workers can claim back wages if dismissed without statutory approval under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, as such dismissals are deemed void.
The court ruled that S.33(2) applies to all employers and workmen in an industrial dispute, regardless of the utility concern designation, insisting on clear compliance with statutory procedures for ....
The court clarified that direct prior demands are not mandatory for initiating conciliation and that the contractor-worker relationship can be adjudicated in the context of unfair labor practices and....
Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act are reproduced as power of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
