Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders ₹50 Lakh Compensation To Gurugram Teacher Couple Illegally Terminated By Private School
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently ordered G.D. Goenka School, Gurugram to pay ₹50 Lakh as compensation to a teacher couple, who were illegally terminated by the school in violation of the rules and without following proper procedure for disciplinary action. The dispute arose when in 2015, a notice was issued to the couple, Parveen Shekhawat and Ajay Singh Shekhawat,...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently ordered G.D. Goenka School, Gurugram to pay ₹50 Lakh as compensation to a teacher couple, who were illegally terminated by the school in violation of the rules and without following proper procedure for disciplinary action.
The dispute arose when in 2015, a notice was issued to the couple, Parveen Shekhawat and Ajay Singh Shekhawat, both Physical Education Teachers at G.D. Goenka School, informing them of their performance being sub-standard. Subsequently, they were both terminated by serving a one-month notice.
The matter reached the division bench of Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan of the High Court when the school filed two letters patent appeals against orders of the Appellate Tribunal and the single bench decision of the High Court.
The tribunal below had ordered reinstatement of the couple with back wages, which was affirmed by a single bench of the High Court.
Noting that although the argument that reinstatement of the couple could not be done was invalid, the Court ordered for payment of compensation in this case in light of various Supreme Court precedents. Accordingly, the division bench said:
“The argument that there should not have been reinstatement is without any basis… keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli v. Lakshmi Naraian, AIR (1976) SC 888, followed in Smt. J. Tiwari v. Smt. Jawala Devi Vidya Mandir and Others, 1979 (4) SCC 160, where the claim for reinstatement by the Principal was converted by the High Court into decree for damages on the ground that the institution was a private one and there was a contract inter se, and considering Kailash Singh v. Managing Committee, Mayo College, Ajmer and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 216, we are of the opinion that instead of directing reinstatement, compensation should be increased.”
Before the division bench, the school contended that reinstatement could not be ordered since the employment dispute related to a contract of personal service under Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872, in which case, damages could be ordered to be paid, at the most. Since damages were already paid, no reinstatement could be ordered by the Tribunal.
Reliance was placed by the school on the decisions in Secretary, A.P.D. Jain Pathshala and Others v. Shivaji Bhagwat More and Others, (2011) 13 SCC 99 and Kailash Singh.
The employees, on the other hand, contended that as per the letter of appointment, three months’ notice had to be served, in violation of which, their termination was illegal.
Notably, the Tribunal under the Haryana Education Act, 2003 had, vide its order, observed the termination of the two employees without being served a notice of three months or being given a chance of hearing to be against natural justice principles and, therefore, illegal.
Accordingly, it had ordered reinstatement in service with full back salary along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of their termination.
The division bench of the High Court placed reliance on the Haryana School Education Act, 1995 and the Haryana School Rules, 2003. The Court said that:
“It is clear that the prescribed procedure has been put in place and the said procedure was never followed at any stage by the school while dispensing with the services of the respondents…as per Rules, imposition of major penalty could only be done by approval from the Managing Committee...unfortunately these provisions were not adhered to at any point of time before the termination…”
Noting that the provisions of the Act and the Rules were not adhered to, the Court ordered enhancement of compensation to Rs. 50 Lakh, to be adjusted against the sum of Rs. 20 Lakh, which was earlier ordered by the High Court in one of its interim orders.
The Court said that:
“We are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served if Mrs. Parveen Shekhawat is paid Rs.20,00,000 as compensation on account of the illegal action of the school management in terminating her services without any enquiry and her husband Mr. Ajay Singh Shekhawat would be entitled to Rs.30,00,000 as compensation. The above said compensation of Rs.50,00,000 would be subject to the adjustment of Rs.20,00,000 which they had already received way back in the year 2018.”
The Court added that the said amount was supposed to be paid to the respondents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the couple shall be free to enforce the orders of reinstatement with back wages as directed by the Tribunal.
Senior Advocate Akshay Bhan and Advocates Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Pawandeep Singh and Amandeep Singh appeared for the appellant school and Ms. Parveen Shekhawat and Mr. Ajay Singh Shekhawat respondents appeared in-person.
Case Title: M/s. G.D. Goenka School v. Parveen Singh Shekhawat and Others and M/s. G.D. Goenka School v. Ajay Singh Shekhawat and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 4
Coram: Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan