Bombay High Court Dismisses Educational Society's Challenge to Pay Back Wages Ordered by School Tribunal. Back Wages Liability Falls on Employer, Not State Government, Under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 86
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Rajapur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Ratnagiri, a registered society running an educational institution, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Education Officer (Secondary) Ratnagiri dated 21st April 2015. The order directed the petitioner to pay back wages to respondent no.3, an employee, in compliance with the School Tribunal's order. The respondent no.3 was appointed on 12th June 1985 and his services were terminated on 23rd January 2010 for alleged misconduct. The School Tribunal, by judgment dated 16th August 2011, allowed the appeal, declared the termination illegal, and ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages. The petitioner contended that as per the State Government's policy (Government Resolution dated 27/06/2012), the back wages should be paid by the State Government, not the employer. The Education Officer rejected this contention and directed the petitioner to pay. The High Court examined the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and the relevant Government Resolution. The Court held that the liability to pay back wages is on the employer, and the policy does not shift this liability to the State. The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Education Officer's order.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Back Wages - Liability of Employer - Section 12, Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The School Tribunal ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages. The Education Officer directed the petitioner to pay back wages. The petitioner contended that as per State Government policy, back wages should be paid by the State. The Court held that the liability to pay back wages is on the employer, not the State, and the policy does not absolve the employer. (Paras 1-19)

B) Service Law - State Government Policy - Back Wages - Government Resolution dated 27/06/2012 - The petitioner relied on a Government Resolution stating that back wages shall be paid by the State Government. The Court held that the policy applies only to cases where the employee is reinstated by the State or its authorities, not to cases where the employer is a private educational institution. (Paras 14-18)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Education Officer can direct the petitioner (employer) to pay back wages to the employee in compliance with the School Tribunal's order, or whether the State Government is liable to pay back wages under its policy.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ petition dismissed. Order of Education Officer dated 21st April 2015 upheld. Petitioner directed to pay back wages to respondent no.3.

Law Points

  • Back wages liability of employer
  • State Government policy on back wages
  • interpretation of Section 12 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
  • 1977
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (04) 189

WRIT PETITION NO.757 OF 2016

2018-04-18

B.R. Gavai, Smt. Bharati H. Dangre

2018:BHC-AS:11680-DB

Mr. S.A. Rajeshirke i/b Prabhakar M. Jadhav for the petitioner, Ms. Kavita Solunke AGP for the respondent State, Ms. Ranjana Todankar for respondent no.3

Rajapur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Ratnagiri

State of Maharashtra & ors

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging order of Education Officer directing petitioner to pay back wages to employee.

Remedy Sought

Quashing and setting aside of order dated 21st April 2015 passed by Education Officer (Secondary) Ratnagiri.

Filing Reason

Petitioner contended that as per State Government policy, back wages should be paid by State, not employer.

Previous Decisions

School Tribunal allowed appeal of respondent no.3, declared termination illegal, ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages.

Issues

Whether the Education Officer can direct the petitioner to pay back wages in compliance with School Tribunal order? Whether the State Government is liable to pay back wages under its policy?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that as per Government Resolution dated 27/06/2012, back wages shall be paid by State Government. Respondent State argued that liability to pay back wages is on employer, not State.

Ratio Decidendi

The liability to pay back wages is on the employer, and the State Government's policy does not absolve the employer from this liability. The Education Officer's direction to the petitioner to pay back wages is valid.

Judgment Excerpts

The claim of the petitioner is that in terms of the policy of the State Government, the back wages should be paid by the State Government (Education Department), however, by the impugned order, it is the petitioner who has been directed to make payment of the back wages. The Court held that the liability to pay back wages is on the employer, and the policy does not shift this liability to the State.

Procedural History

Respondent no.3 was terminated on 23/01/2010. He appealed to School Tribunal, which allowed appeal on 16/08/2011, ordering reinstatement with 50% back wages. Education Officer directed petitioner to pay back wages on 21/04/2015. Petitioner filed writ petition on 18/04/2018.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: Section 12
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Matrimonial Dispute Citing Improbable Allegations. The Court Found that the Rape Allegation on the Day of Engagement Was Implausible and the Cheating Charges Were Not Maintainable in the Absence...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Labour Court's Finding of Violation of Sections 25F and 25G, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, But Questions Reinstatement Relief. The Court Examines Whether Reinstatement with Back Wages Is Mandatory for a Daily-Wager Illegall...