The main legal point established in the judgment is that recognition of the institute as a school and compliance with the Act's provisions regarding termination of services and payment of back wages were crucial in reaching the decision.

JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J :

1. Leave granted.

2. The State of Maharashtra enacted The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, the Act) to regulate recruitment and conditions of service of employees in certain private schools. It came into force with effect from 20.03.1978. Private School has been defined in Section 2(20) of the Act to mean:

"Private School", means a recognized school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority."

3. The terms recognized and school have been defined in Sections 2(21) and 2(24) respectively in the following terms:

"2(21).-"Recognized" means recognized by the Director, the Divisional Board or the State Board, or by any officer authorized by him or by any of such Boards;"

"2(24).- "School", means a primary school, secondary school, higher secondary school, junior college of education or any other institution by whatever name called including technical, vocational or art institution or part of any such school, college or institution, which imparts general, technical, vocational, art or, as the case may be, special education or training in any faculty or discipline or subject below the degree level;"

4. Appellant NO.1 herein runs a training institute. It imparts vocational training to the students admitted therein in different disciplines e.g. Draftsman Civil, Electrician, Wireman, Welder and Fitter etc. The strength of the students in the aforementioned disciplines allegedly began to go down from year to year. So much so, no student took admission in the courses of Draftsman Civil or Welder. The relevant portion of the chart showing details of admissions in the aforementioned disciplines reads as under:

Sl. Academic Draftsman Electrician Wireman Welder Fitter

No. Year Civil

Sanct.ActualSanct. ActualSanct. Actual Sanct. Actual Sanct. Actual

strength adm. strength adm. strength adm.strength adm. Strength adm

14 August 16 08 16 18 16 18 16 18 24 26

1998

15 August 16 09 16 18 16 09 16 1824 19

1999

16 August 16 07 16 17 16 07 16 12 24 14

2000

17 August 16 00 16 09 16 06 16 05 24 11

2001

18 August 16 00 16 01 16 05 16 00 24 02

2002

5. Similarly, in the certificate courses of six months and one year also, there had been a steady decline, as would appear from the following charts:

"Details of Admission for Certificate Courses of six months

Sr. No. AcademicElectric Motor & Electronic Assembly &

Year Armetcher Winding Trouble Shooting

Sanctioned Actual Sanctioned Actual

Strength Admission Strength Admission

1. Jan. 1999 20 13 25 10

2. Jul. 1999 20 16 25 05

3. Jan. 2000 20 05 25 06

4. Jul. 2000 20 15 25 07

5. Jan. 2001 20 08 25 —

6. Jul. 2001 20 06 25 —

7. Jan. 2002 20 —25 —

8. Jul. 2002 20 —25 —

6. "Details of Admission for Certificate Courses of one year

Sr.No. Academic Tailoring & CuttingLathe Machine Operator Computer Operator

Year(part time)

Sanctioned Actual Sanctioned Actual Sanctioned Actual

Strenght Admisssion Strenght Admisssion Strenght Admisssion

1. Jul. 1998 40 34 25 17 20 —

2. Jul. 1999 40 24 25 09 20 —

3. Jul. 2000 40 26 25 05 20 —

4. Jul. 2001 40 32 25 06 20 —

5. Jul. 2002 40 —25 —20 —

7. Respondent No. 1 herein was appointed on a temporC1ry basis. The services of the private respondents were purported to have been temporarily terminated as allegedly a decision had been taken to close down the institute with effect from 12.08.2002, contending that the said purported orders of termination were violative of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

8. Appeals there against were filed by the aggrieved employees/teachers before the School Tribunal, Pune Region. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the said appeals was questioned on the ground that the institute in question was not a school within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. The Tribunal, however, in its judgment held: (i) As