Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Judgment of a learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court holding that the Delhi School Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) while hearing appeal of a dismissed employee of the appellant-school preferred under Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (in short the Act) was not required to refer the appeal to an arbitrator on an application being filed before it by the management of the school under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Arbitration Act) is under challenge in this appeal.
(2.) Factual position is almost undisputed and it is unnecessary to set out the details. In a nutshell the same is as follows: Managing Committee of an un-aided minority institution is the appellant. The respondent No.1- Vijay Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the employee) was working as an Assistant Teacher in the school known as Montfort Senior Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as the School). Disciplinary action was taken against him and by order dated 4-5-2000 the Managing Committee terminated his services. Against the order of termination, an appeal was preferred before the Tribunal under Section 8(3) of the Act. The present appellant filed an application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration Act for reference to an arbitrator. The Tribunal dismissed the application by its order dated 7-6-2001. The same was challenged in a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court and a learned single Judge by the impugned judgment upheld the view of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition.
(3.) In support of the appeal, it was submitted that Chapter V of the Act applies to un-aided minority schools and Section 15 of the Act deals with contract of service. Clause (e) of sub-section (3) of Section 15 deals with arbitration of dispute arising out of any breach of contract between the employee and the managing committee with regard to certain aspects. It is submitted that clause (e) of sub-section (3) of Section 15 clearly makes arbitration mandatory. As per the requirement of Section 15 the school is legally bound to enter into a written contract of service with every employee. Since there is a specific provision for an arbitration and there is no dispute that a written contract of service was entered into, the Tribunal was in law required to refer the matter to an arbitrator. The Service Rules for the staff of the school govern the conditions of service. They are called "Montfort School Staff Rules" (in short "Staff Rules") and have come into effect from 1st July, 1974. Reference is made to Rule 24 dealing with Code of Conduct and Rule 31 containing an arbitration clause. Chapter IV of the Act deals with terms and conditions of service of recognized private schools. Section 12 of the Act states that the provision of Chapter IV is not applicable to un-aided minority schools. Though Section 12 of the Act was held to be discriminatory and void in Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association vs. Union of India and others (AIR 1987 SC 311) and the Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society and another vs. State of Gujarat and another (AIR 1974 SC 1389), yet effect of Section 15 cannot be diluted.;