Name: Kailash Singh vs The Managing Committee Mayo College
Date of Judgement: August 31, 2018
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL No.6409 of 2017
Appellant: Kailash Singh
Respondent: Managing Committee Mayo College
Relevant Case: Ridge v. Baldwin [(1965) 2 WLR 935 (HL)]
Statute Referred: Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989
Facts:
1. The Appellants, were associated with the activities of Mayo College Employees Union and are stated to have been instrumental in setting up the `Sangarsh Samiti Mayo College, Ajmer’, under the banner of which they demanded bonus.
2. Due to the non-payment of bonus, at the time when the Annual Function of the Mayo College was being held, Appellants instigated other staff members not to go to work and created disturbances, causing grave embarrassment to the Institution. The Appellants defended their actions by claiming that they had a right to organise strikes and protests.
3. The services of both Appellants were terminated simultaneously. They approached the Educational Tribunal, set up under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989. Tribunal gives the direction for reinstatement. Aggrieved by this decision, the Respondents approached to the high court where the direction of the Tribunal for reinstatement was upheld.
4. However, the Appellants were aggrieved by the calculation of compensation, in both the cases, while in case of Appellant 1, in respect of non-restoration of his employment.
Issues involved:
- Whether the order of reinstatement was valid?
- Whether the Appellants were entitled to get compensation?
Reasoning:
1. Section 18 of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 states that, “Removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of employees: Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, no employee of a recognised institution shall removed, dismissed or reduced in rank unless he has been given by the management a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the action proposed to be taken. Provided that no final order in this regard shall be passed unless prior approval of the Director of Education or an officer authorised by him in this behalf has been obtained:
Provided further that this section shall not apply:
(i) To a person who is dismissed or removed on the ground of conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or
(ii) where it is not practicable or expedient to give that employee an opportunity of showing cause, the consent of Director of Education has been obtained in writing before the action is taken, or
(iii) Where the managing committee is of unanimous opinion that the services of an employee cannot be continued without prejudice to the interest of the institution, the services of such employee are terminated after giving him six months’ notice or salary in lieu thereof and the consent of the Director of Education is obtained in writing.”
2. The provisions of Section 18 of the said Act are not fulfilled in this case. Therefore the Court upheld the decision of educational tribunal for the reinstatement of the Appellants, as they were not given reasonable opportunity of being heard.
3. The court referring Ridge v. Baldwin [(1965) 2 WLR 935 (HL)] held that, “if the master rightfully ends the contract, there can be no complaint. If the master wrongfully ends the contract, then the servant can pursue a claim for damages.”
Judgement:
The Court directs the Respondent institute to grant damages in the form of salary and allowances payable for a period of eight years of the actual amounts, in both the cases, after adding the respective provident fund amounts and other dues while simultaneously deducting electricity, water and occupation charges, etc., as calculated by the management. The net amount is equal to Rs. 25 lakhs, in the case of Appellant 1 and Rs. 18 lakhs in the case of Appellant 2. Moreover, the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs, already paid to the Appellants, in pursuance to the directions of this Court, is liable to be adjusted from the said amounts payable.
The Appeals are accordingly allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Conclusion:
The Appellants were employed in Mayo College, where they were engaged in activities of Mayo College Employees Union, demanding their bonus. On the non payment of the said bonus, they imposed protests at the time of annual function. The Respondent institute terminates the employment of the Appellants.
The High court upheld the order of reinstatement on the ground that provisions under Section 18 of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 were not fulfilled. Moreover the Court on the basis of precedents held that the Appellants were entitled for Compensation.
Drafted By: Param Mansinghka
Edited By: Tanvi Mahajan, Publisher, Law Insider
Published On: February 15, 2022 at 21:00 IST