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 dismissal of appeals.

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:

(A) Petitioner Nand Kishore was appointed as Chowkidar-cum-Peon with Respondent No.1/Dilshad Public School (hereinafter referred to as the `School') on 31.03.2000, and was subsequently confirmed on the said post vide letter dated 31.03.2001;

(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Officer under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the `ID Act') and had withdrawn the same, without seeking liberty to file a fresh case.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:

(a) Order XXIII CPC or the principle underlying the provision, relied upon by the School, deals with withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim and applies to a suit, which can be filed only in a `Court'. Proceeding before a Conciliation Officer is not a `suit' and Conciliation Officer is not a `Court'. At the highest, a Conciliation Officer is an Administrative Officer with no power to decide the dispute, as an Adjudicatory Authority. He only acts as a Mediator and endeavours to bring about an amicable settlement, between the parties before him. If the parties fail to reach an amicable and/or negotiated settlement, Conciliation Officer has no power to proceed further for adjudication and the only option available to him is to refer the matter to the `Appropriate Government';

(b) There is a clear distinction between proceedings in a Court and those before a Conci