Case Note & Summary
The judgment involves two cross writ petitions arising from a dispute between an employee, Shatrughan Dada Kamble, and the Academy of Fine Arts & Crafts Trust (the Trust) which runs a school. The employee was appointed as a Sweeper on 1st July 1998 without the prior approval of the Education Officer as required under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act). The Trust terminated his services on 30th April 2001. The employee challenged the termination before the Labour Court, which by its award dated 30th April 2013 directed his reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The Trust filed Writ Petition No.1849 of 2013 challenging the award, while the employee filed Writ Petition No.7387 of 2013 seeking full back wages. The High Court examined the validity of the appointment under the MEPS Act. It noted that Section 5 requires that no person shall be appointed in a private school except with the prior approval of the Education Officer. The employee's appointment letter did not mention any such approval, and the Trust admitted that no approval was obtained. The Court held that the appointment was illegal and void ab initio. Consequently, the termination of such an employee does not require compliance with Section 7 of the MEPS Act, which protects only validly appointed employees. The Labour Court's finding that the appointment was valid was perverse and based on no evidence. The Court allowed the Trust's petition, set aside the Labour Court award, and dismissed the employee's petition. The Court also noted that the employee had worked for about three years, but since his appointment was void, he was not entitled to any relief.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Validity - Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) - The appointment of an employee without prior approval of the Education Officer is illegal and void ab initio. The Court held that the Labour Court erred in treating the appointment as valid despite the absence of approval, and the termination of such an employee does not attract the protections under Section 7 of the MEPS Act. (Paras 6-10) B) Service Law - Termination - Illegally Appointed Employee - Section 7 of the MEPS Act - An employee whose appointment is void for want of approval under Section 5 is not entitled to the protections against termination under Section 7. The Court held that the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with back wages was perverse and liable to be set aside. (Paras 11-14) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Labour Court Award - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The High Court can interfere with a Labour Court award if it is based on no evidence or is perverse. The Court held that the Labour Court's finding that the appointment was valid was contrary to the record and the provisions of the MEPS Act. (Paras 15-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of the petitioner as a Sweeper by the Trust was valid under the MEPS Act, and whether the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with continuity and back wages was sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed Writ Petition No.1849 of 2013 filed by the Trust, setting aside the Labour Court award dated 30th April 2013. Writ Petition No.7387 of 2013 filed by the employee was dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Appointment without prior approval of the Education Officer under Section 5 of the MEPS Act is void ab initio
- Termination of an illegally appointed employee does not require compliance with Section 7 of the MEPS Act
- Labour Court cannot grant reinstatement for an appointment that is null and void
- Writ Court can interfere with findings that are perverse or based on no evidence
