The Supreme Court has ruled that the right of employees in a welfare state should be subservient to the rights of a society, particularly in matters of education.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that the right of employees in a welfare state should be subservient to the rights of a society, particularly in matters of education.
Courts cannot pass directions which would frustrate the very purpose for which a particular society is established, a bench of Justices P K Balasubramanyan and P P Naolekar said while upholding an appeal filed by the SCERT (State Council for Education and Research Training) against a Delhi High Court direction for enhanced pay to the employees.
The High Court had earlier on a petition from the employees directed the Delhi Government to ensure that the SCERT employees were paid salaries and other benefits on par with their counterparts in the NCERT (National Council for Education and Research Education).
However, the SCERT challenged the direction on the contention that it was not a State, but an autonomous society registered under the Delhi Societies Registration Act; and mostly dependent on grants from Government, most of which is utilised for paying salaries.
The apex court after examining the SCERT's constitution noted that there was no Governmental control on the society to justify the claim of the employees that it was a Government undertaking.
According to the apex court, the object of SCERT is laudable as it has to coordinate and promote education in the State with its limited resources mostly received by way of government grants.
A court cannot issue a direction which would tend to frustrate the very object with which a society like SCERT is formed or is created, the apex court said.
"After all, there may be a point of time in a welfare State where the right of the employees must be subserivent to the right of the society.
"In the matter of education, surely, the interests of the society at large should prevail and issue of any direction that may endanger such interests must be done with extreme caution and only after careful deliberation," the bench observed while quashing the High Court's direction.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}