IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1945 AR NO. 185 OF 2022 APPLICAN T :

RANI JOSEPH AGED 51 YEARS W/O N.DILEEP KUMAR, EX-AYAH, CHOICE SCHOOL, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-683112 RESIDING AT: PARAYIL HOUSE, BANGALAVUMKUDI ROAD, CHONANGUMVELI, ERUMATHALA.P.O. ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683112 BY ADVS.

KALA T.GOPI T.C.GOVINDASWAMY RENUKA M.R.

NISHITHA BALACHANDRAN SUDHIR KUMAR B.

RESPONDENTS:

1 THE CHAIRMAN CHOICE SCHOOL, NADAMA EAST, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -682301.

2 THE PRINCIPAL * CHOICE SCHOOL ,NADAMA EAST, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -682301 ( *THE ADDRESS OF R2 IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 04/11/2022 IN IA 1/2022 IN AR 185/2022.

3 THE CHOICE FOUNDATION CHOICE HOUSE, P.V.SREEDHARAN ROAD, KUMBALAM, KOCHI -

682506, PIN - 682506 BY ADVS.

RAJESH VIJAYENDRAN ASOK CHACKO THOMAS SIDHIQUL AKBAR K.A.(K/1289/2016)

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R What presents in this Arbitration Request is disputes between the applicant and the respondent – “Choice School” - in which she was employed as an “Ayah”.

2. This Arbitration Request is opposed by Sri.Rajesh Vijayendran – learned counsel appearing for the respondent – School, saying that the order issued by his client is amenable to a statutory Appeal before the School Management Committee (‘SMC’), as per the Affiliation Bye Laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to which it is affiliated. He submitted that, therefore, the applicant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (‘Act’ for short), without having exhausted the alternative remedy.

3. Interestingly, Sri.S.Nirmal – learned Standing Counsel for the CBSE - which Authority was impleaded suo motu by this Court on the party array - also affirmed that the applicant obtains an effective statutory remedy against the order of her termination before the ‘SMC’, but left it to this Court to take a final decision thereon.

4. I have examined the pleadings on record and have also gone through the materials produced by the rival sides.

5. The disputes, as impelled by the appellant, are stated to be with respect to the terms of Annexure-A2 Agreement. The genesis of the said disputes is that the applicant has been terminated from service by the School; and she asserts that this is contrary to the applicable Rules and Regulations. However, since it is now conceded that there is an alternative statutory remedy available to the applicant, to challenge the said order before the ‘SMC’ as per the Bye Laws of the CBSE, I am certain that she ought to have invoked the same, before having approached this Court through this Arbitration Request. This is because, it is well settled that a request for Arbitration is possible only after the statutory remedies are exhausted.

In the afore circumstances and since both parties now agree that this Arbitration Request can be disposed of, leaving liberty to the applicant to invoke her alternative remedies, I close it, reserving the afore liberty to the applicant to approach the appropriate Appellate Authority - namely the School Management Committee, constituted under the provisions of the Affiliation Bye Laws of the CBSE. If this is done by the applicant, through a statutory Appeal against the order of termination within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be deemed to have been filed in time and decided by the said Authority, after hearing both sides. I record that the learned counsel for the School has agreed to this.

Needless to say, the right of the applicant to approach this Court again with a fresh Arbitration Request, after the afore alternative remedy is exhausted, is fully reserved; and for such purpose, the rival contentions are left open.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS APPENDIX OF AR 185