Case Note & Summary
The Progressive Education Society and another (petitioners) challenged the judgment and order dated 11th August, 2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal Solapur in Appeal No. 125 of 1996. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal preferred by the first respondent (Mohammad Ali Gulam Dastagir Dafedar) and set aside the termination order dated 25th March, 1996 terminating his service as a Junior Clerk. The Tribunal directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent in service as a Junior Clerk from the date of termination (25th March, 1996) till actual reinstatement with back wages. The petitioners filed a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. On 22nd November, 2000, the High Court granted interim stay only of reinstatement, clarifying that there was no stay on the order for payment of back wages. On 10th January, 2001, the petition was admitted and rule was issued, continuing the interim order. The petitioners then filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 134 of 2001, which was disposed of on 4th February, 2002 by a Division Bench. The Division Bench did not interfere with the stay on reinstatement but permitted the respondent to withdraw the amount of Rs. 2,12,394/- subject to furnishing security. The main issue was whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the termination and ordering reinstatement with back wages. The High Court, after hearing the parties, upheld the Tribunal's order, finding that the termination was illegal as it was done without a proper inquiry and in violation of natural justice. The court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the reinstatement and back wages.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination - Unfair Termination - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Termination of a Junior Clerk without holding a proper departmental inquiry and without following principles of natural justice - Held that the termination was illegal and the Tribunal rightly ordered reinstatement with back wages (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the School Tribunal was justified in setting aside the termination order and directing reinstatement with back wages.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the School Tribunal's order dated 11th August, 2000 which set aside the termination and directed reinstatement with back wages.
Law Points
- Termination without proper inquiry
- Violation of natural justice
- Reinstatement with back wages
- School Tribunal jurisdiction
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 84
WRIT PETITION NO. 5687 OF 2000
Mr. Vineet Naik, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. I.M. Khairdi, for petitioners. Mr. Akshay P. Shinde, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ramkrushana Yedave i/b Mr. Vijay Killedar, for respondent No.2. Mr. A.B. Tajane, for respondent No.3.
The Progressive Education Society & Anr.
Mohammad Ali Gulam Dastagir Dafedar and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the School Tribunal which set aside termination and ordered reinstatement with back wages.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the Tribunal's order dated 11th August, 2000 and to uphold the termination order dated 25th March, 1996.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were aggrieved by the Tribunal's order directing reinstatement and back wages.
Previous Decisions
School Tribunal allowed appeal No. 125 of 1996 on 11th August, 2000, setting aside termination and ordering reinstatement with back wages. High Court granted interim stay of reinstatement on 22nd November, 2000. Petition admitted on 10th January, 2001. Letters Patent Appeal No. 134 of 2001 disposed on 4th February, 2002, permitting withdrawal of back wages amount subject to security.
Issues
Whether the School Tribunal was justified in setting aside the termination order and directing reinstatement with back wages.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the termination was valid and the Tribunal erred in ordering reinstatement.
Respondent argued that termination was illegal and without proper inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi
Termination of an employee without holding a proper departmental inquiry and without following principles of natural justice is illegal, and the employee is entitled to reinstatement with back wages.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 11th August, 2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal Solapur in Appeal No. 125 of 1996.
By that order, Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the first respondent and set aside otherwise termination order dated 25th March, 1996 terminating his service.
The Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to reinstate the respondent in service as a 'Junior Clerk' since the date of termination i.e since 25th March, 1996 till he is actually reinstated in the service with back wages.
Procedural History
The respondent was terminated on 25th March, 1996. He appealed to the School Tribunal, which allowed the appeal on 11th August, 2000, setting aside termination and ordering reinstatement with back wages. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 5687 of 2000 on 22nd November, 2000, which granted interim stay of reinstatement only. Petition was admitted on 10th January, 2001. Petitioners filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 134 of 2001, disposed on 4th February, 2002, allowing withdrawal of back wages amount subject to security. The present judgment disposes of the writ petition on 1st July, 2017.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977:
