NDLI: Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Delhi School Education Act 1973 Retrenchment
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Industrial Disputes (amendment) Act, 1964 (36 of 1964) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950) Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (18 of 1973) Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Chapter V-A, s. 25F (a), (b) - Delhi School Education Act, 1973 - ss. 2(h), 8(2), 10 - Retrenchment - Challenge to -Appellant-permanent driver in a public school, having become surplus, retrenched from services by respondent-Managing Committee of the School - Issuance of notice to the appellant in accordance with s. 25F(a) and retrenchment compensation - Tribunal and the High Court held that the appellant was retrenched from the services by the Managing Committee following the procedure laid down u/s. 25F (a) and {b) - On appeal, held: Driver employed by a school, being a skilled person, is a workman for the purpose of the 1947 · Act - Notice for retrenchment was served on. the appellant on 07.01.2003, however, no evidence to show that notice of the retrenchment was sent to the appropriate authority even till date - Thus, the mandatory conditions of s. 25F to retrench a workman was not complied with - Notice of retrenchment and the order of retrenchment set aside - Further, the Managing Committee did not obtain prior approval of the order of termination passed against the appellant from the Director of Education as required u/s.8(2) of the DSE Act - No evidence to show that the retrenchment of the appellate was necessary as he had become 'surplus' - Thus, the termination of the appellant is bad in law for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of s. 25F and also s. 8(2) of the DSE Act - Management to re-instate the appellant at his post with back wages - Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 - r. 76(a).s. 25F {a),{b),{c) - Condition prescribed for retrenchment of work as prescribed u/s. 25F {a), {b), {c) - Directory or mandatory - Held: Section 25F(c} is a condition subsequent, but is still a mandatory condition required to be fulfilled by the employers before the order of retrenchment of the workman is passed.Delhi School Education Act, 1973 - s. 8(2) - Compliance of - Requirement - Appellant-permanent driver in a public school, having become surplus, retrenched from services by respondent Managing Committee of the School - Submission that Managing Committee before terminating services of appellant did not comply with the mandatory provision of s. 8(2), holding that s. 8(2) was struck down in Kathuria case - Held: Section 8(2) is a procedural safeguard in favour of an employee to ensure that an order of termination or dismissal is not passed without the prior approval of the Director of Education, to avoid arbitrary or unreasonable termination - High Court erred in striking down s. 8(2) in Kathuria Public School's case and is bad in law - Furthermore, notice of retrenchment was served on the appellant on 07. 01.2003 and was retrenched from service on 25. 07.2003 - Decision in Kathuria Public School's case striking down s. 8(2) was rendered two years later and respondents could not have foreseen that s.8(2) would be struck down later and thus, decided not to comply with it - Section 8(2) was very much a valid provision of the statute on the date of the retrenchment of the appellant - Rights and liabilities of the parties to the suit must be considered in accordance with the law as on the date of the institution of the suit - Thus, the termination order was bad in law.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda
Neutral Citation	2016 INSC 318
Petitioner	Raj Kumar
Respondent	Director Of Education & Ors.
SCR	[2016] 1 S.C.R. 697
Judgement Date	2016-04-13
Case Number	1020

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Raj Kumar Gupta Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs. Delhi Administration Through Secretary (labour) and Ors.

Des Raj, Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. Etc.

University of Delhi & Anr. Vs. Ram Nath

Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar Kumar

Surendranagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh

Management of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. The Workmen & Ors.

The Secretary, Indian Tea Association Vs. Ajit Kumar Barat and Ors.

Gamon India Limited Vs. Niranjan Dass

Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education & Ors.

Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Raj Kumar Gupta Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs. Delhi Administration Through Secretary (labour) and Ors.

Des Raj, Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. Etc.

University of Delhi & Anr. Vs. Ram Nath

Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar Kumar

Surendranagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh

Management of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. The Workmen & Ors.

The Secretary, Indian Tea Association Vs. Ajit Kumar Barat and Ors.

Gamon India Limited Vs. Niranjan Dass

Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education & Ors.