Ms. Tamali Wad, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, Ms.Ayushi Bansal and Mr. Aakash v. ANITA BHOLA & ORS

Judgment

1. The petitioner-School has filed this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging an order of the Delhi School Tribunal dated

05.12.2024, by which delay in filing of an appeal by the respondent No. 1 has been condoned. 2. The petitioner-School is a recognized private unaided linguistic minority school, established by the Maratha Mitra Mandal – respondent No.2 herein. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher [“TGT”] (Computer Science) in the petitioner-school in the year

1991, and confirmed in the year 1992. She was subsequently promoted to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:01.02.2025 15:31:01 W.P.(C) 917/2025 Page 1 of 9 PGT (Computer Science) in the year 1998 and granted senior scale with effect from 01.09.2014. 3. By a communication dated 01.03.2021, the petitioner purported to convey a decision of its Executive Committee stating that respondent No.1 “will be retiring w.e.f.-01.04.2021”. It is the admitted position that respondent No.1 would have attained the age of superannuation a few months later, i.e., on 31.07.2021. However, the petitioner cited the financial status of the school and the issue of funds requirement, as justification. The copy of the communication filed with the writ petition, bears an endorsement of respondent No.1 stating, “Received under protest, for further discussion on terminal benefits.” 4. Respondent No.1 addressed a complaint dated 25.03.2021 to the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, with copies endorsed to various other officials, including the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Department and the Directorate of Education. It appears that conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [“the Industrial Disputes Act”], were thereafter commenced, to which the petitioner-school objected by a communication dated 08.12.2022, including on the grounds of jurisdiction. 5. In the writ petition, the petitioner-School has stated as follows – “3. Brief facts of the case, so far as relevant for the purpose of the present writ petition (pertaining to the issue of delay in filing the Appeal), are given as under. (ix) On 25.03.2021, Respondent No.1, approached the Conciliation Officer, Govt. of NCT of Delhi under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”). Vide order dated 08.12.2022, the proceedings before the Ld. Conciliation Officer, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, were closed. It may be noted that the proceedings were closed on account of the fact that the parties had failed to reach any solution. Hence, Respondent No. 1 was advised to file their claim, if any, before the competent authority. True copy of the orders passed by the Conciliation Officer, Govt. of NCT Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:01.02.2025 15:31:01 W.P.(C) 917/2025 Page 2 of 9 of Delhi are annexed hereto as Annexure P-5 (Colly).”

6. A copy of the order of the Conciliation Officer dated 08.12.2022 has also been placed on record, which states that the matter has been prolonged and both parties have failed to reach any solution. The complainants were, therefore, advised to file their claims before the competent authority, and the proceedings were closed. 7. Respondent No.1 has thereafter filed an appeal under Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 [“the Act”], before the Delhi School Tribunal [“Tribunal”] on 21.03.2023. 8. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has decided the question of limitation, with reference to Section 11 of the Act and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [“the Limitation Act”]. The period of limitation for filing of an appeal, provided under Section 8(3) of the Act, is three months. The Tribunal has computed the delay as 13 days, counting the period of 103 days, from the closure of the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer on

08.12.2022, until the filing of the appeal 21.02.2023. 9. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Management of S.E.S. Baba Nebhraj Sr. Secondary School v. Raj Kumari Khanchandani1 [hereinafter, “Nebhraj”], the Tribunal observed that it has the power to condone delay. It rejected the submission on behalf of the petitioner-School that Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied as the Conciliation Officer is not a Court. Applying a liberal approach, the Tribunal has condoned the delay. 10. Ms. Tamali Wad, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner - school, 1 2011 (124) DRJ 235. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:01.02.2025 15:31:01 W.P.(C) 917/2025 Page 3 of 9 submits that the Act and Rules do not confer any power upon the Tribunal to condone the delay in filing of an appeal under Section 8(3) of the Act. She contends that the judgment in Nebhraj2 relied upon by the Tribunal, has been wrongly decided, ignoring the law laid down in several decisions of the Supreme Court on the question of whether a Tribunal has the power to condone delay. By way of example, Ms. Wad cites the judgments of the Supreme Court in Fairgrowth Investments Ltd. v. the Custodian3 and Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited & Anr4 [hereinafter “Hongo India Private Limited”]. 11. Without prejudice to this submission, Ms. Wad further submits that Section 14 of the Limitation Act has also been wrongly applied by the Tribunal for several reasons, including that the Conciliation Officer does not fall within the definition of “Court of first instance or of appeal or revision,” that the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer were not with regard to the same matter in issue, that the proceedings were not prosecuted with due diligence and good faith, and that the said proceedings had not been closed due to a defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature. Ms. Wad submits that the Tribunal has failed to apply its mind to these ingredients of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, while deciding the question of condonation of delay. 12. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, submits that the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in Nebhraj5 concludes the question of power of the Tribunal to condone the delay. He