Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

Under assail is the writ order dated 21.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.12823 of 2021.

2. Union Christian Matriculation Higher Secondary School is the appellant before this Court. The first respondent instituted a writ proceedings challenging the order of removal from service. The writ court made a finding that the first respondent has attained the age of superannuation and therefore removal of service has arisen naturally, the relief claimed by her against the removal order has become infructuous. Accordingly, the writ court modified the relief by directing the appellant to pay full and final settlement to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders to disburse the amount within a period of six weeks. Thus, the present appeal is filed by the school management.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the writ petition is not maintainable. Though the writ court has proceeded as if the impugned order passed by the appellant management dated 03.05.2021 is the order of termination, a plain reading of the said order would show that the school management had taken a decision to reduce its workforce and had a discussion with the teacher and thereafter the first respondent was relieved from her duty as teacher of the school. The order further proceeds to state that full and final settlement due to the first respondent will be given at the time of leaving. Therefore, the order dated 03.05.2021 under challenge in the writ proceedings is not an order of termination, which cast stigma on the first respondent, but an order of retrenchment issued due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the management has taken a decision to reduce its workforce.

4. The writ court has proceeded mainly on the basis that the said order dated 03.05.2021 is an order of termination issued without following the procedures as contemplated for imposing penalty. Retrenchment cannot be equated with termination. That apart, the order itself shows that the first respondent is entitled for full and final settlement at the time of leaving. Thus, the very basis on which the writ order proceeds itself is not in consonance with the purport of the impugned order dated 03.05.2021 passed by the appellant management.

5. Learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent had served long years in the school and the rules of natural justice have been violated. Matriculation schools are governed by the Code (Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018) issued by the Government and therefore the writ would be maintainable. He would rely on the judgments of the learned Single Judges of this Court as well as the Division Bench judgments. This Court has gone through the facts of those cases, which all are distinguishable. Learned counsel for the first respondent would contend that the first respondent was terminated on 03.05.2021 in an unfair manner during the COVID-19 lockdown period. Therefore, the first respondent had no efficacious remedy and thus the writ petition was entertained.

6. This Court is of the considered view that the said reason is unacceptable. Even if the writ proceedings are not maintainable against private institutions and in the present case, matriculation school, a suit would lie before the competent civil Court. Any aggrieved person is at liberty to approach either the Civil Court having jurisdiction or the competent authority under the Code for redressal of his grievances. More so, the first respondent also proceeded on the basis that the order passed by the appellant management has passed an order of termination and in fact, it is not. It is only an order of retrenchment, wherein full and final settlement has already been ensured to the first respondent. Currently, she is aged about 64 years and has already reached the age of superannuation. Therefore, full and final settlement would be the only remedy which can be extended by the Courts or even by the authorities