Writ Petition Nos. 115, 119 and 128 of 1998. Case: Shramik Shikshan Mandal and Ors. Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.. Bombay High Court
|Case Number:||Writ Petition Nos. 115, 119 and 128 of 1998|
|Party Name:||Shramik Shikshan Mandal and Ors. Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: P.R. Patil, Adv. and For Respondents: S.S. Daund, A.G.P.|
|Judges:||R.V. Ghuge, J.|
|Issue:||Maharashtra Employees Of Private Schools (conditions Of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Sections 11, 11(2)(f), 11(e), 5, 5(2), 7, 9|
|Judgement Date:||May 09, 2017|
|Court:||Bombay High Court|
R.V. Ghuge, J., (Aurangabad Bench)
These three petitions have been admitted by this Court on 17.2.1998 and by a common interim order, interim relief was granted to the petitioner/management, by which the impugned judgments in favour of the respondent No. 2/employees in all these matters were stayed. Consequentially, all these respondents/employees (hereinafter referred to as the "appellants") were kept out of employment from April 1993.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/management and the original appellants in extenso.
Learned counsel on behalf of the appellants has cited the following reported judgments.
i. Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board [ (2009) 15 SCC 327],
ii. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and another Vs. Gitam Singh [ (2013) 5 SCC 136],
iii. BSNL Vs. Man Singh [ (2012) 1 SCC 558],
iv. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota Vs. Mohan Lal [2013 LLR 1009],
v. Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others [ (2013) 10 SCC 324],
vi. M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. - (1979) 2 CC (sic SCC) 80,
viii. Murari Mohan Deb Vs. Secretary to the Government of India - (1985) 3 SCC 120,
ix. Educational Society Tumsar Vs. State of Maharashtra - (2016) 3 SCC 512,
x. St.Ulai High School Vs. Shri Devendraprasad Jagannath, [2007 (109) Bom.L.R. 60: 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 597],
xi. Manorma Verma Vs. State of Bihar - 1994 Supp (3) SCC 671,
xii. Shri Bhagwan Mahavir Primary School Vs. Presiding Officer - 2014 (3) Mh.L.J. 161,
xiii. Matoshri Ramabai Ambedkar Vidyarthi Vasatigruh Vs. Bharat D. Hambir - 2008 BCI 1 and
xiv. Sayyed Maksood Ali Sayyed Roshid Ali Vs. Uruj-E-Urdu Education Society - 2011 (4) Mh.L.J. 952.
For the sake of clarity, the details about the services of the appellants in these three petitions are as under:-
(i) Appellant Jaysing Girase is B.A., B.Ed.
(ii) Appellant Sattarsingh was a Peon and no qualifications were prescribed.
(iii) Appellant Bhimsingh Girase is B.A., B.P.Ed.
(iv) Appellant Jaysingh was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 1.7.1989. He was then appointed as an in-charge Head Master in between 1991 and 1992. He was again appointed as an Assistant Teacher for the academic year 1992-93.
(v) Appellant Satarsingh was appointed as a Peon on 1.3.1990. He is said to be terminated on 1.4.1991 and again appointed for one year upto 1992. He is said to be terminated on 1.4.1992 and yet again appointed for the year 1992-93.
(vi) Appellant Bhimsingh was initially appointed as an untrained Teacher on 15.10.1987. He is said to have left the services in 1989. In 1990, he was again appointed as an untrained Teacher and terminated on 1.4.1991. For the academic years 1991-92 and 1992-93 he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher.
The cause of action for these three appellants arose on account of the refusal of the petitioner in granting them an appointment order for the academic year 1993-94. They approached the School Tribunal by filing Appeal Nos. 36, 37 and 38 of 1993. It was contended that the management prevented them from reporting for duties on 12.6.1993 which was the beginning of the academic year 1993-94.
The appeals were initially allowed ex-parte when the petitioner/management did not cause it's appearance despite the service of Court notice. By judgment dated 7.1.1995, these appellants were granted reinstatement with continuity and backwages by the School Tribunal. The petitioner/management approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1081 to 1983 of 1996. Suffice it to say that the matter was remanded by this Court on the condition of payment of Rs. 25,000/- to each of the appellants for remanding the matter. Ultimately, by the impugned judgment, dated 29.9.1997, all the appeals were allowed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 ("the MEPS Act" for short) and the appellants were granted reinstatement with continuity and 50% backwages.
After these matters were before this Court, the impugned judgments were stayed. Eventually the matter reached the Honourable Apex Court and each of these appellants were granted Rs. 25,000/- towards continuing the stay to the impugned judgment. Consequentially, all these appellants have been out of employment for the past about 24 years.
Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner/management has primarily canvassed the following points:-
(i) None of these appellants have been...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL