TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 1381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice as teachers on completion of the specified years of service. It provided for constitution of a three member Grievance Redressal Committee (consisting of the concerned Divisional Deputy Director of Education, the Assistant Director and the Education Officer) to consider and decide the grievances relating to selection, appointment, re-appointment or mid-year cancellation of appointment. The scheme provided as follows: All the complaints received under the Shikshan Sevak scheme are to be referred to the aforesaid Three Member Committee. This committee will hold monthly meetings and render its decision on the complaints and would inform the same to the concerned. An opportunity to put up the case would be given to the complainant. (Emphasis supplied) 3. The Bombay High Court disposed of several writ petitions challenging the said scheme, by order dated 16.8.2000, recording the submission made on behalf of the state government that it would amend the scheme by incorporating the several modifications suggested by the court. While doing so, the High Court also directed the state government to reconstitute the Grievance Redressal Committee with a retired Dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ernment Resolution dated 27.7.2001 was issued directing that the grievances will be considered by a Single Member committee consisting of retired Judge (higher level) at Mumbai, Aurangabad and Nagpur by way of circuit bench and resolve the complaints of Shikshan Sevaks. Facts of this case 6. The Appellants appointed the first Respondent as a Shikshan Sevak on 29.7.2000 for the period 1.8.2000 to 31.7.2003. The first Respondent alleges that his services were orally terminated on 11.6.2001. On the other hand, the Appellants allege that services of first Respondent came to an end in March-April, 2001 (as his appointment was not approved due to lack of prescribed qualifications); and the first Respondent joined another school as an assistant teacher in July, 2001. The first Respondent challenged his termination by filing an appeal before the School Tribunal. Later he withdrew the said appeal on 18.10.2003 and filed an appeal before the Grievance Committee in the year 2004. The Appellants raised various preliminary objections about the maintainability of the complaint. As the Grievance Committee did not consider them, the Appellants filed W.P. No. 7597/2005 seeking a direction to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 27.4.2000, the Grievance Redressal Committee was merely a mechanism to hear grievances of Shikshan Sevaks and give its recommendation to the Education Department, so that the department could take appropriate action. The Grievance Committee was not intended to be a quasi-judicial forum as was evident from the following: (a) The committee was constituted only to consider the grievances of the Shikshan Sevaks by giving them an opportunity of putting forth their grievances, (b) The scheme did not contemplate issue of notice to the employer, nor hearing both parties, nor rendering any adjudicatory decision, (c) The committee was a departmental committee with only the concerned officers as members. 9. The High Court while recommending various modifications to the said scheme, in its order dated 16.8.2000, issued specific directions making significant changes in the constitution and functioning of the committee. Firstly it directed a change in the constitution of the committee by requiring a retired District Judge to head the Committee. Secondly, it directed that an opportunity should be given to the 'parties', that is, the complainant (Shikshan Sevak) and the person agai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ever name called including technical, vocational or art institutions. The term 'employee' was initially defined as any member of the teaching and non-teaching staff of a recognized school. Section 8 provided for constitution of School Tribunals consisting of single member who is an officer of the rank of Civil Judge (Senior Division). Section 9 gave a right of appeal to the employees of private schools to the Tribunal. The Tribunal was given the power to give appropriate reliefs and directions to the management including reinstatement, awarding of lesser punishment, restoration of rank, payment of arrears of emoluments etc., and also the power to levy penalty. When the Shikshan Sevak Scheme was introduced in the year 2000, it was assumed that the Shikshan Sevaks were not "employees" of private schools and therefore will not be entitled to approach the School Tribunals for relief. Therefore, the scheme provided a grievance redressal mechanism. When the validity of the scheme was challenged, the High Court was also of the view that the Act would not apply to Shikshan Sevaks as they were not 'employees' as defined under the Act. The High Court however was of the view t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not to be interpreted as prohibiting the legislature from establishing Tribunals not covered by the said Articles as long as there is legislative competence under an appropriate entry in the Seventh Schedule. 14. Courts and Tribunals are constituted by the State, to invest judicial functions, as distinguished from purely administrative or executive functions, (vide Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh 1955 (1) SCR 267. 'Courts' refer to hierarchy of courts invested with state's inherent judicial power established to administer justice in pursuance of constitutional mandate. Tribunals are established under special Statutes to decide the controversies arising under those special laws. In Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma 1965 (2) SCR 366 this Court observed: ...Judicial functions and judicial powers are one of the essential attributes of a sovereign State, and on considerations of policy, the State transfers its judicial functions and powers mainly to the courts established by the Constitution; but that does not affect the competence of the State, by appropriate measures, to transfer a part of its judicial powers and functions to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... European Commission of Human Rights in Zand v. Austria Appeal No. 7360 of 1976 decided on 12.10.1978): "The judicial organization in a democratic society must not depend on the discretion of the executive, but should be regulated by law emanating from the Parliament". 16. Article 162 of the Constitution, No. doubt, provides that subject to the provisions of the constitution, the executive power of a State shall extend to the matters upon which the Legislature of the State has competence to legislate and are not confined to matters over which legislation has been already passed. It is also well settled that so long as the State Government does not go against the provisions of the Constitution or any law, the width and amplitude of its executive power under Article 162 cannot be circumscribed; and if there is No. enactment covering a particular aspect, the Government could carry on the administration by issuing administrative directions or instructions, until the legislature makes a law in that behalf. (See Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab 1955 (2) SCR 225 and Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. 1982 (1) SCC 39. But the powers of the State to exercise executive powe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r create exclusive jurisdiction in a quasi-judicial forum like the Grievance Committee will be entitled to deal with them. The High Court, cannot, by a judicial order, nullify, supersede or render ineffectual the express provisions of an enactment. 19. Therefore, we hold that constitution of a Grievance Committee as a public adjudicatory forum, whose decisions are binding on the parties to the disputes, by an executive order of the Government is impermissible. Secondly, the High Court cannot in exercise of judicial power interfere with the jurisdiction of the civil courts vested under Code of Civil Procedure. Any such Grievance Committee created by an executive order, either on the direction of the High Court or otherwise, can only be fact finding bodies or recommending bodies which can look into the grievances and make appropriate recommendations to the government or its authorities, for taking necessary actions or appropriate reports to enable judicial Tribunals to render decisions. The Grievance Committee cannot be public quasi-judicial forum nor can its decisions be made final and binding on parties, in disputes relating to Shikshan Sevaks. Therefore, it has to be held that ....