The Managing Committee/Governing Body of R.K. Arya College Nawanshar vs Sh. B.S. Gogna and others

Rajindro Nath Mittal, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the Managing Committee/Governing Body of R.K. Arya College, Nawanshahr (hereinafter referred to as the Managing Committee), against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge First Class, Amritsar, dated July 19, 1976.

Briefly the case of the petitioner is that B.S. Gogna, respondent No. I, was appointed as the Principal of R.K. Arya College, Nawanshahr (hereinafter referred to as the College). His service were subsequently terminated. Alter the termination of his services, he made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the University) to constitute an arbitration committee under the regulations framed by the University. The University thereafter constituted a Committee consisting of Mr. Lal Singh, respondent No. 3 (nominee of the Vice-Chancellor), Mr. Janki Dass, Advocate, respondent No. 4 (nominee of Principal Gogna) and Mr. Nand Lal, respondent No. 5 (nominee of the College). The Managing Committee instituted an application u/s 33 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of Subordinate Judge First Class, Amritsar stating that there was no such law under which the University could constitute an arbitration committee and thus the appointment of the said committee was illegal. Some other objections were also taken, but they are not relevant for the decision of the present revision petition.

The application was contested by B.S. Gogna and the University, respondent Nos. 1 and 2. They denied the allegations of the petitioner and pleaded that the arbitration committee had been properly constituted and the University had the right to do so. They further pleaded that an application u/s 33 of the Act was not maintainable.

The trial Court held that the constitution of the arbitration committee was valid and the matter could be referred to it by the University, and that the petition u/s 31 of the Act was maintainable. Consequently it dismissed the petition. The Managing Committee has come up in revision petition against the order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, to this Court.

The question that arises for determination in the present case is whether the Committee constituted by the University for settling the dispute between the College and Mr. B.S. Gogna, was a validly constituted Committee or not. In order to decide this question, some other facts may be noticed. The Committee was constituted under Regulation 15 of the Chapter titled as Regulation to govern service and conduct of teachers in non-Government affiliated colleges'', at page 303 of the Guru Nanak University Calendar, Volume II, 1974 Edition (hereinafter referred to as the Calendar Volume II). Regulation 5 says that any dispute arising in connection with the termination of the services of a principal/Teacher except when he is on probation, shall be referred to the arbitration of a committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor or his nominee and a nominee each of the management and the teacher. After the appointment of the Committee under Regulation 15, it was found by the University that only by an ordinance such a provision could be incorporated and not by a regulation. The University therefore, passed a regulation on April 12, 1975, by which it changed regulations in respect of service and conduct of teachers in non-Government affiliated colleges to ordinances with retrospective effect from October 25, 1970, the date from which the regulations of the Punjab University were adopted by the Senate of the University. The aforesaid resolution is as follows:--

Resolved Unanimously:--That in view of the provisions contained in section 20 of the University Act, Regulations in respect of service and conduct of Teachers in non-Government Affiliated Colleges be changed into Ordinances'' retrospectively with effect from 25th October, 1970 (i.e. the date from which the Regulations of the Punjab University were adopted by the Senate of this University).

From the resolution it is evident that all the regulations contained in the Chapter ''Regulations to govern service and conduct of teachers in non-Government affiliated colleges'', which starts at page 298 and ends at (sic )in Calendar Volume II, were converted into ordinances, Naturally the effect of the resolution was that Regulation No. (sic) was converted into an ordinance. Mr. Bharpur Singh, Registrar of the University, also filed an affidavit dated December 1, 1975, to the aforesaid effect.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has faintly argued that the University had no right to frame ordinance regarding the conditions of service of the teachers working in non-Government affiliated Colleges. I, however, regret my inability to accept this contention of the Learned Counsel. Section 4(19) of the Guru Nanak University Amritsar Act, 1969 (hereinafter called the University Act), authorises the University to frame Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations for all or any of the purposes mentioned in that section. Section 20 of the University Act deals with ordinances. Clause (k) of the aforesaid section is relevant and is as follows :--

Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the Ordinances may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:--

... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ...

(k) the supervisions and inspection of colleges and other institutions admitted to the privileges of the University.

Section 21(1) authorises the Syndicate to make, amend or repeal any ordinance. Sub-section (3) of section 21 says that all ordinances made by the Syndicate shall have effect from such date as it may direct. A reading of clause (k) of section 20 show that the University is entitled to frame ordinances for supervision of the colleges which are admitted to its privileges. Section 5 of the University Act deals with territorial exercise of power of the University. Sub-section (3) of the said sections says that an educational institution situated within the limits of area specified in sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be associated and admitted to the privileges of the University. It is not disputed that the college is situated within the limits of the area specified in sub-section (1). Consequently it will be deemed to be admitted to the privileges of the University. The words ''supervision of colleges'' in clause (k) of section 20 are wide enough to include superintendence regarding teaching staff. Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the University has the powers to make ordinances regarding the service and conduct of teachers in non-Government affiliated colleges. It is further clear from sub-section (3) of section 21 that the University can make such ordinances with retrospective effect.

It is next contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the ordinance under which the Committee was constituted was not in existence on the date of its constitution. He argues that there is no validation clause provided in the ordinance by which the constitution of the committee was validated. He further argues that in the aforesaid situation, the Committee constituted under the regulation cannot be held to be a properly constituted Committee under the ordinance. I find force in this contention of the Learned Counsel. No doubt it is true that the ordinances have been given retrospective effect, but still it was incumbent upon the University to have validated the constitution of the Committee, set up prior to April 12, 1975, the date when the resolution was passed. For the foregoing reason 1 am of the view that the present Committee is not a validly constituted Committee.

The second question for determination is whether the College can challenge the constitution of the Committee u/s 33 of the Act. Section 33 says that any party to an arbitration agreement or any person claiming tinder him desiring to challenge the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement or an award or to have the effect of either determined shall apply to the Court and the Court shall decide the question. Section 46 relates to application of Act to statutory arbitrations. It provides that the provisions of the Act, except sub-section (1) of section 6 and sections 7, 12, 36 and 37, shall apply to every arbitration under any other enactment for the time being in force, as if the arbitration were pursuant to an arbitration agreement and as if that other enactment were an arbitration agreement, except in so far as this Act is inconsistent with that other enactment or with any rules made thereunder. A reading of the two sections leaves no doubt in my mind that the existence or validity of a statutory arbitration can be challenged u/s 33 of the Act. In the present case, the University, as already discussed above, has got powers to frame ordinances. The word ''enactment'' does not find place in the definition section of the Act. This word, in my view, would include bye-laws, rules regulations ordinances, statutes, etc. Framed under an Act. The ordinance framed by the University will, therefore, form part of the University Act- For the aforesaid reasons the college is entitled to challenge the constitution of the Committee u/s 33 of the Act.

For the aforesaid reasons, 1 accept the revisions petition and set aside the order of the University by which the Committee has been constituted. In view of the fact that the case involves complicated question of law, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.