Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mumbai Pradesh Arya Vidya Sabha, a technical educational institution, ran a Fitters trade course of two years duration. Due to insufficient student enrollment (only four students in academic year 2003-04), the institution sought and obtained permission from the State Government vide order dated 12.4.2005 to close down the Fitters trade faculty. Consequently, by letter dated 28.5.2005, the services of respondent no.1, a teacher in that trade, were terminated with effect from 31.7.2005. The respondent challenged the government's permission by filing Writ Petition No.2604 of 2005, which was disposed of by a Division Bench on 13.10.2005, relegating the respondent to an appeal already filed before the School Tribunal. The respondent also challenged the termination before the School Tribunal, which by order dated 20.1.2006 set aside the termination and directed reinstatement with continuity and back wages. The petitioner challenged this order in the present writ petitions. The High Court held that the termination was a direct consequence of the closure of the faculty, which was bonafide and with government permission. The court found that the School Tribunal erred in setting aside the termination without considering the validity of the closure. The court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the Tribunal's order and upholding the termination.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination due to Closure of Course - Validity - Petitioner institution closed Fitters trade faculty due to insufficient students with government permission - Respondent teacher's services terminated - Held that termination is consequential to closure and not retrenchment, and no prior permission under Industrial Disputes Act is required when closure is bonafide and with government approval (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of a teacher's services due to closure of a course/faculty is valid and whether prior permission under the Industrial Disputes Act is required.
Final Decision
Writ petitions allowed. Order of School Tribunal dated 20.1.2006 set aside. Termination of respondent's services upheld.
Law Points
- Termination of services due to closure of course is not retrenchment
- closure of faculty with government permission is valid
- no requirement of prior permission for termination when closure is bonafide
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (04) 81
Writ Petition No.572 of 2006 and Writ Petition No.573 of 2006
Mr. A.Y. Sakare a/w Ms. Anupama Shah for petitioners; Mr. Shaikh Nasir Masih for respondent no.1; Mr. Imam Calcuttawala, A.G.P. for respondent nos.2 to 4
Mumbai Pradesh Arya Vidya Sabha
Arun Sitaram Kuwar & Ors. (in WP 572/2006) and Nandkishore Ramrao Goley & Ors. (in WP 573/2006)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of School Tribunal setting aside termination of teacher and directing reinstatement.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of School Tribunal order dated 20.1.2006 and upholding of termination.
Filing Reason
Petitioner terminated respondent's services due to closure of Fitters trade faculty with government permission; respondent challenged termination before School Tribunal which ordered reinstatement.
Previous Decisions
School Tribunal by order dated 20.1.2006 set aside termination and directed reinstatement with continuity and back wages.
Issues
Whether the termination of respondent's services due to closure of the Fitters trade faculty was valid.
Whether the School Tribunal erred in setting aside the termination without considering the validity of the closure.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that termination was consequential to bonafide closure of faculty with government permission, and no prior permission under Industrial Disputes Act was required.
Respondent argued that termination was illegal and without following due process.
Ratio Decidendi
Termination of a teacher's services due to bonafide closure of a course/faculty with government permission is valid and does not require prior permission under the Industrial Disputes Act. The School Tribunal erred in setting aside the termination without considering the validity of the closure.
Judgment Excerpts
Both these writ petitions are identical and therefore the same are disposed of by this common order and judgment.
The petitioner is a technical educational institutions and was interalia running a course of technical education in the faculty of Fitters trade.
By a letter dt.28.5.05 the services of respondent no.1 were terminated w.e.f.31.7.05.
Procedural History
Petitioner terminated respondent's services on 28.5.2005. Respondent challenged termination before School Tribunal. Tribunal set aside termination on 20.1.2006. Petitioner filed present writ petitions on 13.4.2006.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
