Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nirala Education Society, challenged the judgment of the School Tribunal dated 18.12.1995 and subsequent orders dated 15.4.1996 and 22.4.1996. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal of respondent No.1, Jugalkishore Bhagwatiprasad Shukla, setting aside his termination order dated 1.5.1992 and directing reinstatement with full back wages. The employer contended that the appeal was barred by limitation as it was filed after 2½ years, and that the Tribunal passed an ex parte order without proper service. The High Court noted that the employee had worked elsewhere during the interim period and that the appeal was filed within time as per the Tribunal's finding. However, the Court found that the Tribunal had not properly considered the employer's application for setting aside the ex parte order. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the School Tribunal for fresh hearing on merits, directing the employer to pay costs of Rs. 5,000 to the employee.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination - Limitation - Appeal - Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The employee was terminated on 1.5.1992 but filed an appeal on 15.11.1994, after 2½ years. The School Tribunal allowed the appeal ex parte. The employer challenged the order on the ground of limitation and lack of service. The High Court held that the appeal was within limitation as the employee was not aware of the termination order earlier, and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to condone delay. The ex parte order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh hearing on merits. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appeal filed by the employee after 2½ years from the date of termination was barred by limitation under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and whether the School Tribunal could pass an ex parte order without proper service.
Final Decision
The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and orders of the School Tribunal and remanded the matter to the School Tribunal for fresh hearing on merits. The employer was directed to pay costs of Rs. 5,000 to the employee.
Law Points
- Limitation
- Appeal
- Ex parte order
- Reinstatement
- Back wages
- School Tribunal
- M.E.P.S. Act
- 1977
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (10) 103
Writ Petition No. 2342 of 1996
Shri V.V. Bhangde for petitioners, Shri A.Z. Jibhkate for respondent No.1, Shri P.D. Kothari, AGP for respondents No. 2 & 3
Nirala Education Society & Ors.
Jugalkishore Bhagwatiprasad Shukla & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment of the School Tribunal allowing the employee's appeal and ordering reinstatement with back wages.
Remedy Sought
The employer (petitioner) sought to set aside the Tribunal's order and dismiss the employee's appeal.
Filing Reason
The employer challenged the Tribunal's order on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation and that the order was passed ex parte without proper service.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal allowed the employee's appeal on 18.12.1995, set aside termination, and ordered reinstatement with full back wages. The employer's application to set aside the ex parte order was rejected on 15.4.1996, and an application for time to comply was rejected on 22.4.1996.
Issues
Whether the appeal filed by the employee after 2½ years from the date of termination was barred by limitation under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977?
Whether the School Tribunal could pass an ex parte order without proper service on the employer?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner (employer): The post was reserved, termination was on 1.5.1992, appeal filed on 15.11.1994 after 2½ years, hence barred by limitation. The employee worked elsewhere during this period. The Tribunal passed ex parte order without proper service.
Respondent No.1 (employee): The appeal was within limitation as the employee was not aware of the termination order earlier. The Tribunal correctly allowed the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The School Tribunal's ex parte order was set aside because the employer was not properly served and the Tribunal did not consider the employer's application to set aside the ex parte order. The matter was remanded for fresh hearing on merits, and the limitation issue was not finally decided.
Judgment Excerpts
By this writ petition, the petitioner – employer has challenged the judgment dated 18.12.1995 passed by the School Tribunal & the subsequent orders dated 15.4.1996 and 22.4.1996 passed after decision of appeal by the very same Tribunal.
On 18.12.1995, the School Tribunal has allowed the appeal of present respondent No.1 and has directed the management to reinstate him with continuity and full back wages.
Procedural History
The employee was terminated on 1.5.1992. He filed an appeal on 15.11.1994 before the School Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal ex parte on 18.12.1995. The employer filed an application to set aside the ex parte order, which was rejected on 15.4.1996. An application for time to comply was rejected on 22.4.1996. The employer then filed the present writ petition on 4.10.1996, and this Court initially directed status quo and later granted stay on 7.5.1997.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: Section 9
