Case Note & Summary
The management of a private school filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the judgment of the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, which had allowed the appeal of the respondent employee and directed her reinstatement with consequential benefits from the date of her oral termination, 23 December 2008. The employee had been appointed as a teacher by an appointment order dated 16 June 2003 under Rule 9(5) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The appointment order was in the prescribed form Schedule D and stated that the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 and the Rules were applicable. The employee worked continuously for over five years until she was orally terminated on 23 December 2008. The management contended that she was merely an 'extra teacher' allowed to work to gain experience, that there was no regular vacancy, and that no procedure under the Rules was applicable because she was not a regular employee. The employee argued that the appointment order was genuine, she had the requisite qualifications, she had performed duties including examiner work, and her termination was illegal as it violated the statutory provisions. The School Tribunal held in her favor, finding that the appointment order established a valid employment and the oral termination was illegal. In the writ petition, the management reiterated its stand and placed reliance on several precedents. The High Court, after considering the submissions and the record, found the management's contentions to be unsustainable. The court noted that the appointment order was not disputed, it explicitly invoked the Rules, and the employee had given over five years of service. The court observed that this was a classic case of an unscrupulous employer exploiting a teacher. The court held that the appointment order was binding on both parties and that the concept of an 'extra teacher' was not recognized under the Rules. The management had failed to set up a specific defence under Section 5 of the Act before the Tribunal and could not be permitted to blow hot and cold after accepting the employee's services for a long period. Applying the principle of estoppel and following the Full Bench decision in Ramkrishna Chauhan v. Seth D.M. High School, the court held that the appointment order could not be disowned by the employer. Consequently, the oral termination was held to be illegal, and the School Tribunal's order of reinstatement with consequential benefits was upheld. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment of Teachers - Binding Nature of Appointment Order - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, Rule 9(5) - An appointment order issued under Rule 9(5) in the prescribed form Schedule D creates a valid employment relationship; management cannot subsequently claim that the appointment was only for gaining experience or that the employee was an extra teacher - Held that the appointment order dated 16.6.2003 was conclusive and binding on both parties (Paras 7-10). B) Service Law - Termination of Teacher - Oral Termination Illegal - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977, Section 5 - Oral termination of a teacher who has continuously worked for over five years without following the mandatory procedure under the Act and Rules is void and illegal - Held that the management's action of oral termination was unlawful and the School Tribunal rightly granted reinstatement with consequential benefits (Paras 3, 11). C) Service Law - Pleadings - Defence Under Section 5 Must be Specifically Raised - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977, Section 5 - Before challenging the legality of an employee's appointment, the management must take a specific plea under Section 5 of the Act; mechanical framing of issues without such a plea is insufficient - Held that the management failed to set up a defence under Section 5 before the Tribunal (Paras 5(o), 5(r)). D) Service Law - Estoppel - Management Cannot Repudiate Its Own Act After Accepting Benefit - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 115 - Having issued an appointment order and availed the employee's services for more than five years without demur, the management is estopped from contending that no employer-employee relationship existed - Held that the doctrine of estoppel precludes the management from blowing hot and cold (Paras 3, 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the School Tribunal was correct in allowing the employee's appeal and granting reinstatement with consequential benefits when the management claimed she was an extra teacher not entitled to protection under the MEPS Act and Rules.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned judgment of the School Tribunal dated 1.1.2015 is upheld. The respondent no.1 employee is entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits from 23.12.2008. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Appointment order under Rule 9(5) MEPS Rules
- 1981 is binding
- Oral termination after 5 years illegal
- Management cannot contradict own appointment order
- Defence under Section 5 of MEPS Act must be specifically pleaded
- Estoppel from denying employment after accepting services
