Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dharmaji Karvekar, was appointed as Head Master in 1977 in a school run by the Pipla Education Society. His services were terminated after an enquiry. He appealed to the Director of Education, who allowed the appeal and directed reinstatement, but the Management did not permit him to join. He filed Writ Petition No.1133 of 1990, which he withdrew after reinstatement. Subsequently, the school's results declined, leading to derecognition by the Deputy Director of Education. Taking advantage of this, the Management again terminated the petitioner's services while retaining other teachers. The petitioner appealed to the School Tribunal, which ordered reinstatement but granted only 10% back wages. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court. The Management also filed a writ petition (No.1865 of 2003), which was dismissed in default. The High Court heard the petitioner's counsel and the AGP for respondent No.2. The petitioner argued that after finding the termination illegal, the Tribunal had no warrant to deny 90% back wages, relying on Kishor S. Kasare v. S. Kumars Group of Companies. The Tribunal had observed that the petitioner must show he was not gainfully employed, and noted the Management's submission that the petitioner owned agricultural land and maintained two wives. The High Court held that these considerations were irrelevant and extraneous, and that the Tribunal's reasoning was flawed. The Court allowed the petition, set aside the Tribunal's order regarding back wages, and directed the Management to pay full back wages to the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Back Wages - Illegal Termination - Gainful Employment - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The School Tribunal granted only 10% back wages to the petitioner after ordering reinstatement, relying on the Management's submission that the petitioner owned agricultural land and maintained two wives. The High Court held that these considerations are extraneous and irrelevant to the issue of gainful employment, and that once termination is found illegal, back wages should ordinarily follow unless the employee fails to show he was not gainfully employed. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed payment of full back wages. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the School Tribunal was justified in granting only 10% back wages to the petitioner after finding his termination illegal, based on considerations of ownership of agricultural land and maintenance of two wives, which are irrelevant to the question of gainful employment.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order of the School Tribunal to the extent it granted only 10% back wages, and directed the Management to pay full back wages to the petitioner from the date of termination till reinstatement.
Law Points
- Back wages
- illegal termination
- gainful employment
- irrelevant considerations
- School Tribunal
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
- 1977
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 458
Writ Petition No.3419 of 2003
Shri S.M. Puranik for Petitioner, Shri D.B. Patel, AGP for Respondent No.2
Dharmaji s/o Chintamanji Karvekar
Pipla Education Society, Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the School Tribunal granting only 10% back wages to the petitioner upon reinstatement after illegal termination.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought full back wages from the date of termination to reinstatement.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was terminated from service as Head Master by the Management, and after the School Tribunal ordered reinstatement, it granted only 10% back wages, which the petitioner considered inadequate.
Previous Decisions
The Director of Education had earlier allowed the petitioner's appeal and directed reinstatement. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1133 of 1990, which was withdrawn after reinstatement. The School Tribunal ordered reinstatement but granted only 10% back wages. The Management's Writ Petition No.1865 of 2003 was dismissed in default.
Issues
Whether the School Tribunal was justified in granting only 10% back wages after finding the termination illegal.
Whether ownership of agricultural land and maintenance of two wives are relevant considerations for denying back wages.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: After holding termination illegal, there was no warrant to deny 90% back wages; reasons given by Tribunal are irrelevant; relied on Kishor S. Kasare v. S. Kumars Group of Companies.
Management (before Tribunal): Petitioner had landed property and agricultural land in Madhya Pradesh and maintained two wives, suggesting he was gainfully employed.
Ratio Decidendi
Once termination is found illegal, back wages should ordinarily follow unless the employee fails to show that he was not gainfully employed. Ownership of agricultural land or maintenance of two wives are irrelevant considerations for determining gainful employment and cannot be used to deny back wages.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Presiding Officer has, however, observed that in order to claim back wages, the employee concerned must show that he was not gainfully employed in the interregnum.
It is indeed tragic that the learned Presiding Officer should have equated ownership of agricultural land or maintenance of two wives to gainful employment in order to deny the petitioner the back wages.
The observations of the learned Presiding Officer in paras 13 and 14 of the judgment, which seem to have influenced his decision, also show that the considerations, which weighed with the learned Presiding Officer, were extraneous to the cause, which the petitioner was agitating.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed as Head Master in 1977. His services were terminated after an enquiry. He appealed to the Director of Education, who allowed the appeal and directed reinstatement. The Management did not permit him to join, so he filed Writ Petition No.1133 of 1990, which he withdrew after reinstatement. Subsequently, the school was derecognized, and the Management again terminated the petitioner's services. He appealed to the School Tribunal, which ordered reinstatement but granted only 10% back wages. The petitioner filed the present writ petition. The Management also filed Writ Petition No.1865 of 2003, which was dismissed in default.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977:
