The Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the termination of an employee's services as being contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the rules framed thereunder.

JUDGMENT - M.H. KANIA, Actg. C.J.:---This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the learned 8th Additional District Judge, Pune, in Civil Appeal No. 578 of 1984.

2. The appellants before me are the defendants, who succeeded in the trial Court but failed in the District Court and the respondent is the original plaintiff, who failed in the trial Court but succeeded in the District Court.

3. The plaintiff, Dr. V.S. Satpute, was working as the Head Master in a School run by defendant No. 1, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and defendant No. 2 was the Honorary Secretary of the said society. Very briefly stated, there were allegations against the plaintiff that the misappropriated large amounts belonging to the society and there was a demand that he should make good the losses caused by him and submit his resignation. On 24th October, 1982 there was a meeting of the society at which two letters of resignation and a cheque were given by the plaintiff. According to the defendants, at that meeting the resignation of the plaintiff was accepted from the end of October, 1982. On 26th October, 1982 the plaintiff sent a letter to defendant No. 1 society informing the society, in terms, that his resignations and the cheque were obtained forcibly from him by the defendants and, therefore, he was withdrawing the resignations given by him. A similar letter was sent by him to the Director of Education, Pune. On 28th October, 1982 the plaintiff instituted the suit from the result of which this appeal arises. On 29th October, 1982 the plaintiff wrote another letter to the defendants stating that he should be granted leave for five days as applied for by him and he should be allowed to resume charge of his duties on 30th October, 1982. On 29th October, 1982 the defendants issued a notice calling a meeting of the executive committee on 31st October, 1982 wherein one of the subjects to be discussed was to consider the plaintiff's application for leave and also the conduct of the plaintiff in not showing the amount in hand as per the cash book during the earlier meeting on 24th October, 1982. The defendants have taken the stand the resignations of the plaintiff tendered at the meeting on 24th October, 1982 were accepted at that meeting although from the end of that month and it was on that footing that they did not permit the plaintiff to resume charge at the end of this leave.

4. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that on 24th October, 1982 the defendants had obtained his resignations by force or coercion. In view of this conclusion, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The other contentions raised before the trial Court and the conclusions arrived at do not merit being mentioned here in view of the limited controversy in the appeal, except that the trial Court rejected the contention of the defendants that in view of the provisions of section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain a dispute such as the one raised by the plaintiff was barred. It may be mentioned here that in the suit filed by the plaintiff he had asked for a declaration that his resignations obtained by the defendants on 24th October, 1982 were null and void and that he continued to be in service as the Head Master of the said school.

5. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that his resignation letters were obtained by force. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that the defendants and some executive committee members of defendant No. 1 had subjected the plaintiff to force and coercion and obtained two documents of resignation from his as well as a cheque. It was further held by the learned Judge that the defendants had failed to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document