- (1.) This is a Defendant's appeal from an order of remand passed by the lower appellate court.
(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are these. The Plaintiff-Respondent is a lecturer in the D.A.V. College, Bulandshahr run by the Arya Vidya Sabha, a registered society. He was appointed a lecturer in Chemistry on an initial salary of Rs. 150 per month in the scale of Rs. 150-10-190-15-250 on probation for one year with effect from 5-8-1948. He was confirmed on Rs. 170 per mouth with effect from 5-9-1949. An agreement was executed between him and the management. Thereafter with effect from 8-7-1950 his salary was enhanced and fixed at Rs. 205 per month in the same scale. He was given two increments of Rs. 15 each in July, 1951 and July 1952. According to him he was entitled to get a monthly salary of Rs. 250 with effect from 8-7-1953 in terms of the agreement. On 8-7-1953 he went on a year's study leave and rejoined the College on 8-7-1954. The auditor of Local Funds Account after making an audit objected to the enhancement of the Plaintiff's pay and of some other teachers and asked the management to regularise their pay in accordance with the mandatory scales prescribed by this Educational Department. In the year 1953 the management reduced the salary of the Plaintiff by an amount of Rs. 45 bringing it down to Rs. 205 per month. Thereupon the Plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen claiming a sum of Rs. 315 as arrears reckoned at the rate of Rs. 45 per month from 8-7-1954 to 7-2-1955. He also claimed a declaration that he was holding the post of lecturer on a salary of Rs. 250 from 8-7-1950 and was entitled to get pay at that rate from the management. The Defendants inter alia pleaded that having regard to the terms of the agreement and to the provisions of paragraph 151-B of the U.P. Educational Code no suit lay in civil court and the matter lay within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitration Board. The trial court gave effict to the Defendant's contention and dismissed the suit with costs. The lower appellate court upon a consideration of the terms of paragraph 15 of tne agreement and paragraph 151-B of the U.P. Educational Code and relying upon a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Raghunath Prasad v. Gurdayal,1955 AWR 644 came to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the civil court was not barred and that since the Defendants did not avail of the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the contention that the suit should fail cannot be upheld in the present state of law. The lower appellate court accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the trial court and remanded the suit to that court with directions to readmit it to its original number and then dispose of it according to law. As against that decision the present appeal has been filed.
(3.) Learned Counsel has urged that the lower appellate court has taken a wrong view of the provisions of paragraph 15 of the agreement read with para. 151-B of the U.P. Educational Code. It would, therefore, be necessary to reproduce these provisions. Paragraph 15 of the agreement runs as follows: 15. The committee and the teacher agree that any dispute on a question of dismissal, discharge, on reduction or withholding of salary shall be referred to a committee of arbitrators which shall consist of-- (1) A representative of teachers nominated by the teacher's representative body recognised as such. (2) A representative of the managers nomininated by the Managers' recognised representative body. (3) The Inspector/Inspectress of Schools or a person specially nominated by the DPI, in case of an appeal against the Inspector's/Inspectress's decision (Chairman). The decision of this arbitration committee shall be final and no suit shall be in any civil court in respect of the matters decided by it. Further, neither of the parties shall sue the other for any breach not referable to arbitration of this agreement without having first referred the question or questions in dispute to the Divisional Inspector/Circle Inspectress and allowed him/her reasonable time not exceeding two months to settle the dispute.;