JUDGMENT - SAWANT P.B., J.:-This is a Contempt Petition filed by the members of the non-teaching staff belonging to unskilled Class, which is generally called Class IV Category, employed by the respondents in their High School. Petitioners 1 and 10 are peons, petitioners 2,3 and 6 are gardeners or malis, petitioners 4 and 8 are carpenters, petitioner No. 7 is a polishman, petitioner No. 5 is a driver and petitioner No. 9 is a cleaner. They were in service of the respondents from various dates between 1973 and 1985. Their services were terminated in January, 1986. They preferred an appeal to the School Tribunal constituted under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the Tribunal by its order dated 29th August, 1986 allowed their appeals, set aside the termination of their services and directed the respondents to reinstate them in service with all benefits due to them from the date of the termination of their services till they were reinstated/allowed to resume their duties. The order was to be given effect to within forty days from the receipt of the Tribunal's order by the respondents.

2. Against this order, the respondents preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the Original Side of this Court being Petition No. 2567 of 1986 raising a number of contentions. By his judgment and order dated October 8, 1986 a learned Single Judge of this Court rejected the petition unholding the order of the School Tribunal. An oral application for stay of the Tribunal's order was also rejected by the learned Judge. The respondents thereafter preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of this Court being Appeal No. 942 of 1986. By its order of October 16, 1986, the Division Bench rejected the contentions of the respondents, including the contention that the respondents were a minority institution and therefore, the Act was not applicable to them and dismissed the appeal against all petitioners, except petitioners Nos. 3 and 6. The appeal was admitted against petitioners 3 and 6 because of the contention taken by the respondents that they had since passed their superannuation age. However, the Bench rejected the application for stay of the Tribunal's order even against petitioners 3 and 6. The respondents thereafter preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court being S.L.P. No. 14931 of 1986 which was dismissed summarily by the Court on January 23, 1987 with the following order:

“We find no reason to interfere. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. Shri Sorabjee, learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contents that the petitioners have since discontinued the bus service. If that be so, the petitioners are at liberty to move the High Court for appropriate direction with regard to respondents 7 and 11, namely Akram Ashraf Ali and S.S. Omer.” (emphasis supplied).

The said respondents are petitioners 5 and 9 before us. We will have an occasion to refer to this order a little later. The result of all these proceedings is that the Tribunal's order directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners and to pay them all their benefits remained undisturbed. Even in the case of petitioners 3, 6, 5 and 9 there being no stay obtained of the operation of the Tribunal's order either from the Division Bench or from the Supreme Court the order continues to operate, and the respondents are duty bound to abide by and comply with the same.

It is now necessary to point out that the respondents have obviously misled Hon'ble the Supreme Court while taking the above quoted ex parte order from the Court on January 23, 1987 in the Special Leave Petition. It appears from the order that the respondents through their Counsel had made a representation to the Supreme Court that after the Division Bench of this Court had dismissed their appeal on October 16, 1986, and before the Special Leave

Click Here to Read the rest of this document