Counsel for petitioners relied on precedent assigning jurisdiction to the Educational Tribunal. The court directed that the record of the writ petition be sent to the Educational Tribunal for appropriate decision.
The record of the writ petition is sent to the Educational Tribunal for appropriate decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP-1602-2019
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-1602-2019 Date of decision: - 05.02.2019
Gulshan Kumar and others
....Petitioners
Versus
S.L. Bawa D.A.V. College, Batala and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present:Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)
Counsel for the petitioners states that jurisdiction to decide the present controversy at the first instance lies with the Educational Tribunal in view of the settled principle of law settled by a Division Bench of this Court in case titled as Management of S.D. Model Senior Secondary School & another Vs . District Judge-cum-Service Tribunal and another , 2014(1) S.C.T. 652 , wherein, it has been held that in view of the judgment of Ho'nble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation & others Vs . State of Karnataka & others, (2002) 8 SCC 481 , the jurisdiction of the Educational Tribunal set up under that
NARESH KUMAR 2019.02.11 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP-1602-2019
-2-
direction. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under: -
“23. In view of the above discussion, we concluded as
under:
(i) That an Educational Tribunal constituted in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation's case (supra), will not have the jurisdiction to decide issue of payment of gratuity, as the same is payable to the teaching and non-teaching staff in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
(ii) In respect of second question, the notification of the State Government constituting Educational Tribunal will include all service disputes arising out of an order passed by the Management, as appealable to the Educational Tribunal. Such right to appeal is not arising in view of the judgment in T.M.A.Pai Foundation's case (supra), but in exercise of the executive powers of the State. (iii) The State Government shall consider appropriate amendments in the Haryana School Education Act, 1995 in the light of statement made by Mr. Poonia before this Court expeditiously.
(iv) Since the controversy regarding the Forum for adjudication of disputes relating to payment of gratuity has been settled now, it shall be open to the aggrieved persons to seek redressal under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in accordance with law, if the same is availed within two months from today. The payment deposited by the petitioners shall be subject to the decision of the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Since the questions of law have been answered, the matter be placed before the learned Single Bench for appropriate decision.”
In view of the above, the petitioners are relegated to their remedy before the Educational Tribunal set up by the Government of Punjab in this regard.
NARESH KUMAR 2019.02.11 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP-1602-2019
-3-
Keeping in view above, let the record of the present writ petition be sent to the Educational Tribunal for appropriate decision as the matter is within the jurisdiction of the said authority.
Counsel for the petitioners states that identical matters, which have been sent to the Educational Tribunal by this Court, have been fixed for 21.02.2019.
Parties are directed to appear before the Educational Tribunal on 21.02.2019.
In view of the above, present writ petition stands disposed of.
( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) February 05, 2019 JUDGE naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes Whether reportable? No
NARESH KUMAR 2019.02.11 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the jurisdiction to decide the service dispute lies with the Educational Tribunal or with this Court.
Whether the petitioners should be relegated to the remedy before the Educational Tribunal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Management of S.D. Model Senior Secondary SchoolRelied on¶14
Management of S.D. Model Senior Secondary School & another Vs. District Judge-cum-Service Tribunal and another, 2014(1) S.C.T. 652
T.M.A. Pai FoundationRelied on¶14
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & others Vs. State of Karnataka & others, (2002) 8 SCC 481 · Who else cites this
Gulshan Kumar and others
S.L. Bawa D.A.V. College, Batala and others
Harsimran Singh Sethi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
