IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1725 of 2009 Date of Decision : December 15, 2009 Ranvir Singh ....Appellant Versus Mahasabha Gurukul Vidyapeeth Haryana, Bhainswal Kalan and Kanya Gurukul Khanpur Kalan through its Secretary and others. ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction was dismissed by the trial Court in the first instance and, thereafter by the lower appellate Court. Aggrieved of the same, he is now before this Court by way of a second appeal filed under Section 100, C.P.C. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was appointed as Math Master in Gurukul Senior Secondary School, Bhainswal Kalan on 21.8.1999 on temporary basis in the grade of Rs.1400-2600. Lateron his appointment was made regular. He requested the defendants to give him the benefit of his previous service by counting the same as probation period. However, his services were confirmed only w.e.f. 1.10.2002. Lateron the defendants issued a letter dated 8.9.2004 terminating his services without assigning any reason and without R.S.A. No. 1725 of 2009 -2- giving any opportunity of hearing to him despite the fact that no complaint was there against his work. Accordingly, he preyed that a decree for declaration be passed in his favour declaring that he was an employee of defendant No.2 where he stood posted as Math Master as on 8.9.2004 and also prior to it. He also prayed that a decree for mandatory injunction be also granted directing the defendants to pay salary to him for the period he remained out of service and in case there arose any vacancy of Math Master in future, he be taken in service on the same terms and conditions. While opposing the suit, the defendants pleaded that Gurukul Senior Secondary School was a privately managed institution under Mahasabha Gurukul Vidyapeeth. The plaintiff was not appointed on grant-in-aid post, rather he was employed under self employment scheme and used to be paid by the Management. Due to financial crisis in the institution, his services were dispensed with as they were not required at all. There were only 100 students studying Math from class- VI to XII. The tuition fee from these students amounted to Rs.9919/- per month whereas monthly salary of the staff came to Rs.68,410/- per month. Under these circumstances, the Management decided to decrease the strength of employees. As there were two other teachers in the school, who could teach math, services of the plaintiff were not required and so they were dispensed with. The defendants denied that the plaintiff had been given any regular post. Therefore, the order dated 8.9.2004 was legal and could not be set aside on any of the grounds R.S.A. No. 1725 of 2009 -3- taken by the plaintiff. Both the learned Courts below held that Gurukul Senior Secondary School was not an aided school and the salary of the plaintiff was being borne by the Management. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. Moreover the order dated 8.9.2004 was not an order of termination of services of the plaintiff, rather it was a retrenchment order. In such a situation, the only remedy available to the plaintiff was to approach the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. The civil Court was not competent to set aside the said order. In view of the same, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief as prayed for, by him. Admittedly, Gurukul Senior Secondary School is a privately managed institution being run by the Mahasabha Gurukul Vidyapeeth. The said institution is not receiving any grant-in-aid from the Government and, therefore, any order passed by it for dispensing with the services of its employees is not required to be within the four corners of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. For 100 students of Math from class-VI to XII, the Management was paying an amount of Rs.68,410/- per month towards pay of the staff despite the fact that it was earning an amount of Rs.9919/- per month only on that count. With a view to curtailing the expenses, the Management decided to reduce the staff. According to the Management, there were two other teachers in the school, who could teach math and under these circumstances, it concluded that the services R.S.A. No. 1725 of 2009 -4- of the plaintiff were not required. Though the plaintiff had claimed that order dated 8.9.2004 passed by the defendants amounted to an order of termination of his services yet both the Courts below, on the basis of the evidence before them, held that infact it was an order of retrenchment. Under these circumstances, the only remedy available to the plaintiff was to approach the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. The civil Court was not competent to go into the illegality or otherwise of such an order of retrenchment. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below were based upon correct appreciation of the evidence available on the file. These findings were neither perverse nor suffering from any illegality or infirmity. As such they cannot not be disturbed and, that too, in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. None of the substantial questions of law, as formulated by the appellant, arises for determination. Resultantly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) December 15, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1