Claims of workmen regarding retrenchment procedure are dismissed as the issue of compliance with Section 25F(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act has attained finality and cannot be re-adjudicated in different forums.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. Vide the present appeals, the Appellants seek to challenge the Order dated 12.11.2021, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of writ petitions, being W.P.(C) No.9188/2019, W.P.(C) No.9191/2019, etc., whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the aforementioned writ petitions and has affirmed the Order dated 03.05.2019, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi, by which the claims of the Appellants herein/workmen have been dismissed as not maintainable.

2. Facts of the case reveal that the Appellants were appointed to various posts by the Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as `the school'). It is stated that the Appellants herein/workmen were retrenched by an Order dated 31.05.2016. The Orders of retrenchment were challenged by the Appellants herein/workmen before the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'). The Tribunal vide Order dated 15.02.2017 rejected the appeals filed by the Appellants herein. In the appeal it was contended that the retrenchment Order dated 31.05.2016 is illegal and bad in law. The Tribunal held that the provisions of Delhi School Education Act will not be applicable to the Appellants because the School is a minority institution. It is noted in the said Order that prior to approaching the Tribunal, the Appellants had already challenged the Order of retrenchment before the concerned authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the I.D. Act') vide registered diary No.2538 dated 01.06.2016, but the Appellants have not disclosed the same in the appeal filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the Appellants herein have not come to the Court with clean hands. The Tribunal also found that vide Order dated 11.07.2016, the proceedings initiated by the Appellants under the I.D. Act were dismissed in default. The Tribunal also observed that the Appellants could not point out any flaw in the retrenchment Order/letter dated 31.05.2016 and the School has followed all the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act while retrenching the Appellants from the service. The Appellants herein challenged this Order by filing a batch of writ petitions, being W.P.(C) 4335/2017, 4344/2017, etc. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide Order dated 19.05.2017 dismissed the writ petitions by observing that Section 25F(c) of the I.D. Act has been followed by the School. Order dated 19.05.2017 was taken up by the Appellants before the Division Bench of this Court by filing LPA 616/2017. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said LPA by passing the following Order:

" It is pointed out that the limited ground urged in this appeal is that the learned Single Judge despite noticing that the provisions of Section 25 F(c) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been complied with and further noticing that the pleadings in that regard did not support arguments, proceeded to render findings. It is submitted therefore that the appellant/workman may be permitted to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to pursue remedy in accordance with law under The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Liberty granted. This appeal and pending application are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn."

3. In view of the liberty granted by the Division Bench of this Court, the Appellants once again initiated proceedings under the I.D. Act. Objections were raised by the School and an application was filed before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in LIR/1474/2018, seeking rejection of the claims of the Appellant