IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.09.2025 Principal, Sant Nischal Singh Public School, Ladwa, and others ….Petitioners Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ambala and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Ms. Supriya Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. A reference made under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’), has been answered in favour of respondent No.2-workman by the learned Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ambala, vide award dated 28.05.2025, (Annexure P-8), thereby, directing the petitioner-Management to reinstate him to the same post on which he was working prior to his termination, with continuity of service, along with 50% back wages, as last drawn by him, from the date of termination till reinstatement.

2. Aggrieved, the petitioner-Management has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Certiorari to quash the award (supra).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in light of the Haryana Government notifications dated 08.09.2005, 28.05.2008 (No.18/18/07-2HBIV), and 07.05.2013 (No.7/45-2010 PS(2)), vide which, it was notified that disputes pertaining to Educational Institutions are to be adjudicated by specially constituted Educational Tribunals, therefore, the learned Industrial Tribunal concerned did not have the jurisdiction to decide the reference (supra). She further submits that the notifications (supra), were issued, in compliance to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka, 2002 (8) SCC 481

4. She asserts that notification dated 28.05.2008 (Annexure P-5), specifically reflects that, for the redressal of grievances of employees of aided/unaided Medical/Dental Ayurvedic/Homeopathic Educational Institutions, who are subjected to punishment or termination of services, appropriate Tribunals would be constituted. Further, the right to file appeals would lie before the learned District & Sessions Judge or Additional District & Sessions Judge, till such Tribunals are set up. Further, it is submitted that, through notification No.7/45-2010 PS(2) dated 07.05.2013, it was clarified that schools are also included in the definition of Educational Institutions. Therefore, post issuance of the notification(s) (supra), any employee working with the petitioner, which is an Educational Institution, has the only remedy to approach the Educational Tribunal, for redressal of any dispute. In such circumstances, since the learned Industrial Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to pass the award, under challenge, the same is void ab initio. She concludes by submitting that the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned award.

5. No other argument was raised before this Court.

6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record.

7. The only question which arises for determination of this Court is, as to whether, the learned Tribunal concerned has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference, and pass the impugned award?

8. Before proceeding with the matter, this Court is reminded that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the remedy under the Act of 1947, cannot be overpowered by any special law. Ex facie, the issue, as referred to above, is no more res integra, as a Division Bench of this Court has already considered the same, in a bunch of appeals, lead case being LPA-1908-2018 (Savitri Devi Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and others), decided on 12.09.2024. For the sake of clarity, it would be expedient to extract the relevant part of the verdict (supra), and the same reads as under:-

“ 1. These intra Court appeals have been filed against the order dated 13.09.2018, passed by learned S