Pradeep Nandrajog, J. - (1.) The appellants in the above captioned appeals are employees of the respondent No. 2 school, which is an unaided private recognized school under the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder. Citing instances of employees working as a driver, conductor or other class -IV category posts, appellants filed writ petitions pleading that since the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 or the Rules framed thereunder do not provide for termination of service by way of retrenchment, declaration be granted that the respondent No. 2 school is bound to follow the procedure established by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder in connection with the service of the appellants. In other words what the appellants claim is that on the justification that the post(s) held by them has been abolished on account of non -availability of work, their services cannot be dispensed with. The writ petitions filed by the appellants have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned common order dated December 21, 2015 on the reasoning that the petitions are premature.
(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that if the jurisprudence of remedies was correctly understood and applied by the appellants they would not be litigating at all at this stage.
(3.) From the pleadings in the writ petition(s) filed by the appellants it is apparent that the appellants would be workman as defined under Sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Concededly, if the school were to resort to retrenchment on account of non -availability of work or for any other reason; and retrenchment being as defined by Sec. 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, should appellants raised an issue, they would be entitled to raise an industrial dispute.;