National Aluminium Co.Ltd.& Ors vs Ananta Kishore Rout & Ors

3. We may first take note of those facts which are not in dispute. These are as follows:

4. In the year 1984, NALCO established two schools in the townships set up by it for its employees working in its manufacturing units at NALCO Nagar, Angul and at Damanjodi, with a view to provide educational facility mainly to the children of its employees from primary to +2 level though the children from neighbouring area are also given admissions. It also provided necessary infrastructure, such as land, building, furniture, library, laboratory equipments and other assets. The said schools admittedly are unaided private schools. On 15th May, 1985, NALCO entered into two separate but identical agreements for the aforesaid schools with the Central Chinmoy Mission Trust, Bombay (in short, CCMT) whereunder the NALCO entrusted the management of the schools on contract basis to CCMT and the schools were called Chinmay Vidyalayas. According to the these agreements, NALCO agreed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per annum to CCMT as donation towards the supervision charges for each school.

6. These agreements were terminable at the instance of the parties by giving six months prior notice in writing to the other party. In the event of termination the agreements, the services of the staff employed by the school were liable to be terminated in accordance with the terms of their appointment in these schools.

7. These agreements came to an end by efflux of time in the year 1990. It appears that CCMT was not interested in continuing with the aforesaid arrangement. This led NALCO to find another organization for running and managing the schools. It is how SVS came into the picture which agreed to manage both the schools. Accordingly Agreement dated 18th May, 1990 was entered into by NALCO with SVS. As per the Agreement, name of the school was changed from Chinmaya Vidyalaya Damanjodi to Saraswati Vidya Mandiar (SVM). As per this agreement NALCO agreed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the SVS towards its supervision charges which was enhanced from time to time and this figure was Rs.50,000/- per annum at the time of the filing of the writ petitions in the High Court. Even as per this Agreement, the Executive Authority of these two schools vests in the Managing Committee to be constituted separately for each of the schools. This Managing Committee is constituted with the following members:

8. Accordingly, two Managing Committees were constituted; one for each school and both have been registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. As per the provision contained in clause 4 of the aforesaid Agreement, other clauses relating to placing at the exclusive disposal of the SVS, the two school premises along with requisite furniture/fittings, library, laboratory games equipments, audio-visual, etc. remain as it is. Likewise provision for providing deficit funds, after accounting for the fee and other amounts received from the students, by NALCO is also maintained. Other functions which are specifically assigned to the Managing Committee, as per this Agreement, are as follow:

32. Only because SVS agreed to take over the employees, would not mean that NALCO becomes the employer. On the contrary, this clause suggests that but for the intervention of NALCO, the school staff that was engaged by CCMT would have been dealt with by CCMT. It is a matter of record that CCMT runs other schools as well. In that eventuality it would have taken these employees with themselves or retrench these employees in accordance with law. Same is the position of SVS who have other schools also. However, this kind of situation is not going to arise in the present case. We place on record the assurance given by the learned Senior Counsels appearing for NALCO that the teaching and other staff of the two schools would not lose their jobs even if present agreement of NALCO with SVS comes to an end and the management is taken over by some other agency for running the schools. We direct that NALCO shall stand committed by this assurance and would adhere to the same for all times to come. The position which emerges, in view of the aforesaid assurance, is that the service tenure of these employees is protected.

34. We say at the cost of repetition that there is no parity in the nature of work, mode of appointment, experience, educational qualifications between the NALCO employees and the employees of the two schools. In fact, such a comparison can be made with their counter parts in the Government schools and/or aided or unaided schools. On that parameter, there cannot be any grievance of the staff which is getting better emoluments and enjoying far superior service conditions.

35. We thus, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the High Court is un-sustainable. Allowing these appeals, the judgment of the High Court is hereby set aside. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.