Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4) to provide rotation system of night shifts to day shifts particularly to the watchmen; and

5) to provide employment on compassionate grounds in case of death of an employee in harness while in service. However, there is no order as to costs and each party is directed to bear its own costs."

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-School filed the present writ petition.

3. Sri Aswin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Sri D.V.Sitharam Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the petitioner-School is a private Christian minority institution established in Visakhapatnam in the year 1931. It does not receive grant-in-aid from the State Government or any financial assistance from the Central Government. The syllabus that is followed by the school is as prescribed by the Indian Council of Secondary Education (ICSE) and Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), New Delhi. Both these organisations are non- statutory organisations. The educational institutions run on the funds of the Trust and the fee earned by the school. The institutions are run on a no-profit basis. The funds raised by the institution are utilised towards salaries of employees, maintenance of buildings, construction of additional class rooms, library, laboratory equipment, computers, stationery and other expenditure required to run educational institutions and also meet the modern challenges in education. The petitioner-School is well reputed in Visakhapatnam for its academic excellence and discipline. The employees of the school are paid well. The demands made by the workmen under the reference are not valid and the reference is illegal and it is made contrary to law.

The learned counsel would further contend that the principles of 'equal pay for equal work' as enshrined in Article 39(D) Part IV of the Constitution of India in respect of private unaided minority educational institutions could not be made applicable. Under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, minority educational institution has a right to establish and administer educational institutions. Right to manage also includes fixation of pay scales etc. There is no basis for the Labour Court to give a direction that free education is to be provided to poor children of regular employees. There is no obligation for the Management to provide free education to the children of the employees and is not a condition of service. The Labour Court should have seen that adequate arrangements are made by the Management for provision of shoes and raincoats to watchmen and there is no justification for directing furnishing of shoes and raincoats individually to watchmen and drivers every year and two uniforms to male employees of Class-IV and two sarees to lady employees in Class-IV every year. There is no such rule with regard to Government or Aided institutions and there is no basis or justification for the Labour Court to direct the provision of rotation system of night shifts and day shifts to watchmen. The Labour Court is not justified in directing the Management to provide compassionate appointment when an employee dies in harness as in the case of public employment. The petitioner-School is a minority institution. The workmen are non-teaching staff of private unaided school and not a factory or an industry to issue directions for provision of shoes, raincoats, uniforms, sarees, etc. The finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner-School is not a minority institution is beyond its jurisdiction and the Labour Court has no power or authority to issue such a declaration. The Labour Court erred in concluding that there was withdrawal of any customary concession or privileges of the workmen. Grant of any privilege or advantage at random or for one or two years cannot constitute customary concession or privilege as contained in Clause IV of Schedule II for the Labour Court to have exercise its power under Section 7(7) of the Act. Hence, the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing directions 1 to 5 of the award. The award of the Labour Court is irrational, unreasonable and cannot be sustained on law or on facts. The Labour Court failed to take into account the benefits granted to the employees under the Employees Provident Fund Act and the welfare schemes under the Act adopted by the school while considering the claims of the workmen. The Labour Court failed to see that no such concessions, allowances and pay scales are paid by the educational institutions similarly situated as the petitioner.

4) to provide rotation system of night shifts to day shifts particularly to the watchmen; and

5) to provide employment on compassionate grounds in case of death of an employee in harness while in service."

Hence, there is no illegality or irregularity which calls for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in considered view of this court that the Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the 1st respondent-Union stating that the demands raised by them are justified and directed the petitioner-Management as stated supra and is not supported by any legally admissible evidence and contrary to law.