The ongoing disciplinary proceedings preclude the invocation of the Industrial Disputes Act, requiring resolution through educational legislation mechanisms.

ORDER :

R.N. Manjula, J.

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the Notification bearing G.O.Rt.No.47/LAB/AIL/S/2024 dated 22.04.2024, on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.

2. Heard Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Nirmal Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Pondy) for R1 & R2 and Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel for R3 and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner has challenged the notification of the first respondent dated 22.04.2024 through which a reference has been made by the first respondent Government in respect of the dispute raised by the third respondent who was a driver in the petitioner School.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner is an Unaided Private Minority School recognised under the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions. The third respondent was appointed as a temporary driver in the petitioner school on 21.07.2001 and his services have been regularised with effect from 01.07.2006. As lot of complaints have been received from the parents of the students against the third respondent that he was temperamental, rude, rough, discourteous and inconsiderate to children, he was asked to handle the load carrier vehicle for transporting stationary and other materials required for the School.

4.1. From 01.06.2015, the third respondent deliberately disobeyed the instructions of the School and refused to drive the Tata Ace Van assigned to him and claimed that he should be allowed to take only School Bus. On 10.06.2015, he had given a letter to the petitioner school by making unnecessary allegations and marked copies of the said letter to the various authorities including the second respondent. The Pondicherry School Education Act and Rules are applicable to both the petitioner and the third respondent and hence, the petitioner School had initiated disciplinary action against the third respondent for the misconduct committed by him under the said Act and Rules.

4.2. The Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable to the petitioner School and the third respondent. Based on the copy of the letter marked to the second respondent / Labour Officer (Conciliation), he assumed power and authority and had issued notice dated 10.02.2016 to the petitioner School calling upon the School to participate in the conciliation proceedings. The petitioner School had challenged the same by way of filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.9524 of 2016. By an order dated 17.07.2023, this Court has directed the second respondent to consider the reply of the petitioner School dated 13.08.2015 and pass appropriate orders on merits. However, the second respondent once again issued a noti