Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. Ms. Rajkotia, learned counsel submitted that the Chairman of DPS Society, had deposed before the National Commission. She relied upon the deposition and submitted that he mentioned about the complaints by the teachers. Denying that Verma was not given adequate opportunity, learned counsel pointed out that he had appeared and sought time to inspect the complaints. Learned counsel stated that Verma had filed a detailed para-wise reply to the complaint, which starkly contradicted his submission that he did not have access to the Commission's reports. It is submitted that Verma filed a Medical Certificate before the Commission expressing his inability to appear and yet was available on those same dates for deposition before Sharda Naik Committee constituted by the school. Learned counsel submitted that the Commission's report cannot be characterized as beyond its jurisdiction. Relying on Section 10 of the Act, it was argued that the Commission's investigative powers were sufficiently broad to encompass enquiries of the kind it held in relation to the complaints by the teachers. After being satisfied that the school and the Society were not acting upon the complaints, despite some background - here the emphasis being upon Kamla Chaudhry report of February, 1999 - the Commission took-up the task of investigating the matter suo motu. Learned counsel argued that the responsibility of ensuring that Vishakha guidelines were implemented both in letter and spirit was that of the employer. Though Vishakha may not have expressly spelt-out any role of the Commission, on a fair reading of the judgment and the mandate cast upon it by the law, it could be reasonably inferred that any failure by the employer to comply with the Vishakha procedure could result in the Commission taking-up the job and enquiring into the matter - which happened in this case. It was argued by the teachers that the allegation that the Commission did not follow a fair procedure is unfounded because summons were issued to Verma and the management; the latter was represented and depositions of its WP(C) Nos..1730/2001, 1731/2001 & 1733/2001 Page 17 Managing Committee members, including the Chairman were recorded. Refuting the submission by Verma and DPS that two Committees had been appointed, the teachers argued that in fact the Commission had constituted a three-member Committee on 25.05.1999 and that the fourth member was added on 17.06.1999.