Code of Matriculation is not a minority institution.

(This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ of declaration, declaring that the Industrial Disputes Act, is not applicable to the Private Schools recognised under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, by virtue of the President assent to the said Act under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, which overrides the labour legislations including the Industrial Disputes Act, as decided by the Apex Court and quash the same as without jurisdiction.)

Prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of declaration, declaring that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not applicable to the private schools recognised under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, by virtue of the President assent to the said Act under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, which overrides the labour legislations including the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as decided by the Apex Court and quash the same as without jurisdiction.

2. The brief facts as could be seen from the affidavit are that the petitioner School is a minority unaided School, governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. The second respondent was originally appointed as a Peon-cum-Messenger on temporary basis in the petitioner school and according to the management, the second respondent failed to attend duty regularly and committed many omissions and commissions. Therefore, he was called on 5.9.2003 by the Managing Committee of the School to explain the reasons for his lapses. The case of the petitioner management is that the second respondent abruptly left by making rude comments against the members of the Managing Committee and thereafter he never returned to the School. Further case of the petitioner is that the second respondent’s employment was on temporary basis; his appointment after 17.10.2003 was not extended; and that, the second respondent did not rejoin the School and he voluntarily abandoned his services on account of his unauthorised absence. Subsequently, second respondent issued a legal notice on 16.9.2003 claiming a huge amount of salary and also claimed reinstatement before the Conciliation Officer. As the conciliation efforts failed, he preferred I.D.No.83 of 2005 on the file of the first respondent and the same is pending. In such circumstances, this writ petition is filed for the above referred prayer.

3. While admitting the writ petition, this court granted interim stay on 4.5.2005. Aggrieved by the stay order, the second respondent filed vacate stay petition contending that due to the failure report filed by the Conciliation Officer, I.D.No.83 of 2005 was raised, and if at all petitioner management has got any grievance it can only file an objection or raise a preliminary issue before the Labour Court and the writ petition as framed is not maintainable. The second respondent also stated that he is out of job and not even receiving any subsistence allowance and therefore the stay granted by this Court causes great hardships and prayed for vacating the interim stay.

4. When the stay petition and vacate stay petition came up for hearing, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent consented for taking up the main writ petition itself for final hearing. Pursuant to the same, arguments in the main writ petition was heard.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner School submitted that I.D.No.83 of 2005, pending before the first respondent is not maintainable since the petitioner School is an Unaided Recognised school. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, and the rules framed thereunder are applicable to the petitioner school and therefore the second respondent can seek remedy only under the said act, if at all