Case Note & Summary
The case involves two writ petitions arising from an order of the School Tribunal, Nagpur, dated 19-11-2014. The School Tribunal allowed an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, filed by the employee, Narayan Wasudeo Meshram, challenging his oral termination from the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 26-10-2005. The Tribunal set aside the termination and directed the Management (Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha and the Head Master) to reinstate the employee with continuity of service but without back wages. The Management filed Writ Petition No.7259 of 2014 challenging the reinstatement, while the employee filed Writ Petition No.4766 of 2015 challenging the denial of back wages. The High Court noted that there was no dispute that the employee was continuously in service from 21-6-2000 to 26-10-2005 and was appointed by separate orders. The Management argued that the employee was appointed on a temporary basis and his services were terminated due to lack of work. The employee contended that the termination was oral and without any inquiry. The High Court held that the oral termination was illegal as it violated Section 9 of the Act, which requires prior approval for termination. However, regarding back wages, the Court observed that the employee did not lead any evidence to show that he was not gainfully employed after termination. Therefore, the denial of back wages was justified. The Court dismissed the Management's petition and partly allowed the employee's petition only to the extent of confirming the reinstatement, but upheld the denial of back wages.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination - Oral Termination - Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The employee was orally terminated from service without any inquiry or prior approval. The School Tribunal set aside the termination and ordered reinstatement with continuity but without back wages. The High Court upheld the reinstatement as the termination was illegal, but found no error in denial of back wages as the employee did not prove he was not gainfully employed. (Paras 2-5) B) Service Law - Back Wages - Reinstatement - Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The employee challenged the denial of back wages. The High Court held that back wages are not automatic upon reinstatement and the burden is on the employee to show he was not gainfully employed. Since the employee failed to discharge that burden, the denial of back wages was justified. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the oral termination of an employee without following the procedure under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 is valid, and whether the denial of back wages by the School Tribunal is justified.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed Writ Petition No.7259 of 2014 filed by the Management and partly allowed Writ Petition No.4766 of 2015 filed by the employee, confirming the reinstatement but upholding the denial of back wages.
Law Points
- Oral termination without inquiry is illegal
- Reinstatement without back wages is appropriate when employee was not gainfully employed
- Section 9 of MEPS Act requires prior approval for termination
