IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 13.01.2025 Date of Decision: 06.02.2025 Kamlesh …..Appellant.

Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Faridabad and another .....Respondents.

(2) LPA No.841 of 2018 (O&M)

Ram Pyare Singh …..Appellant.

Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Faridabad and another .....Respondents.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA *****

Argued by:- Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate with Mr. Vikas Sonak, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Mr. Mohak Bhadana, Advocate with Mr. Satyaveer Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 in LPA No.737 of 2018.

Mr. Tarun Singhal, Advocate for respondent No.2 in LPA No.841 of 2018.

MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J Both the above-captioned Letters Patent Appeals are being taken up together for discussion and adjudication as the similar questions of law and facts are involved therein.

2. LPA No.737 of 2018 has been preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner named Kamlesh whereas LPA No.841 of 2018 has been filed by the appellant-writ petitioner namely Ram Pyare Singh (here-in-after both of them to be referred as ‘the appellants’) to lay challenge to the judgments rendered by learned Single Judge on 27.02.2018 and 16.02.2018, whereby CWP Nos.3740 and 3571 of 2018, moved by them for seeking the issuance of the writ in the nature of certiorari for setting-aside the Awards passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-III, Faridabad (for short ‘the Labour Court’) on 26.10.2015 and 14.03.2017 respectively, have been dismissed.

3. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts, resulting in the filing of CWP No.3740 by the appellant in LPA No.737 of 2018, are that she had been employed by respondent No.2-School, as ‘Safai Karamchari’, on 05.01.2009 and her services were terminated on 22.10.2010. Then, she raised an industrial dispute in this regard, which was referred to the Labour Court and vide the Award dated 26.10.2015, the afore-said Reference had been disposed of, with the observations that it was not maintainable but the appellant would be at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum of District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad.

4. Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts, culminating in the filing of CWP No.3571 by the appellant in LPA No.841 of 2018, are that he was employed by respondent No.2-School, as a ‘Driver’ on 01.08.1992. However, a domestic enquiry had been conducted against him regarding the charge of misconduct and he was held guilty for the same and consequently, he had been dismissed from service vide the letter dated 20.01.2014 and the industrial dispute, as raised by him in respect thereof, had been referred to the Labour Court. Vide the Award dated 14.03.2017, the above-mentioned Reference was returned unanswered on account of its non-maintainability but the appellant had been granted the liberty to avail the remedy of filing an appeal before District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad, against the decision of respondent No.2-School.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2-School(s) in both the present intra Court appeals and have also perused the files carefully.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants have contended that the constitution of the Educational Tribunals, in pursuance of the verdict handed down by the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2003(2) SCT 385, did not debar the appellants from availing the statutory remedy of raising the industrial dispute regarding their termination/dismissal from service, as available to them under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, the Labour Court was required to answer the afore-said References, as arisen from their above-mentioned disputes, on merits instead of relegating them to the Educational Tribunal for seeking the redressal of their afore-referred grievance(s) and in these circumstances, it becomes quite explicit tha