The School Tribunal has the power to grant interim relief, including reinstatement, pending decision of an appeal, but such relief should not normally be the whole relief that the employee would get if he or she succeeded finally.

Headnote:
SCHOOL TRIBUNAL - INTERIM RELIEF - REINSTATEMENT - POWER - CONDITIONS - MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATION ACT, 1977 - SECTION 10(1), 11(2)(F) - RULES, 1981 - RULE 15(6).
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an educational society running a school, challenged the interim order of the School Tribunal directing reinstatement of the respondent, an assistant teacher, in service pending decision of her appeal against termination of service. The petitioner contended that the School Tribunal had no power to direct reinstatement pending appeal and that it had granted the full relief which it could only grant at the time of final decision.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the School Tribunal had the power to grant interim relief, including reinstatement, pending decision of an appeal, but that such relief should not normally be the whole relief that the employee would get if he or she succeeded finally. The Court also held that the School Tribunal should consider the principles of natural justice and hear the opposite party before passing an interim order of a mandatory nature.
Issues: 1. Whether the School Tribunal has the power to direct reinstatement pending decision of an appeal. 2. Whether the School Tribunal can grant the full relief which it can only grant at the time of final decision.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The School Tribunal has the power to grant interim relief, including reinstatement, pending decision of an appeal, but such relief should not normally be the whole relief that the employee would get if he or she succeeded finally. 2. The School Tribunal should consider the principles of natural justice and hear the opposite party before passing an interim order of a mandatory nature.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned interim order, and directed the School Tribunal to decide the appeal itself within three months from the date of the order.

JUDGMENT - DHABE H.D., J.:—The petitioner No. 1 is an Educational Society which runs the petitioner No. 2 School. The petitioners have challenged in the instant Writ Petition the interim order of the learned School Tribunal dated 21-8-1992 by which it has confirmed its ex parte ad interim order directing reinstatement of the respondent No. 2 in Service in his post of Assistant Teacher in the petitioner No. 2 Schools pending decision of the appeal preferred by her before it.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged two contentions before us. The first contention urged before us is that there is no power in the School Tribunal to direct reinstatement of the teacher concerned temporarily pending its final decision in the appeal. The second contention raised before us is that the School Tribunal has at any rate no power to grant by way of interim relief the full relief which it can grant only at the time of final decision in the appeal before it. In support the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of (Cotton Corporation of India v. United Industrial Bank Ltd.)1, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1272.

3. It may be seen that the conditions of service of the Assistant Teachers working in the Secondary School are governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short the 'Act') and the Rules framed thereunder viz. Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short the Rules). Section 4 of the Act provides that the terms and conditions of service of employees of Private Schools would be governed by the Rules framed in that regard under the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 5 provides that every person appointed to fill a permanent vacancy shall be on probation for a period of two years and that, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5), he shall, on completion of this probation period of two years, be deemed to have been confirmed. Sub-section (3) of section 5 then provides that if in the opinion of the Management, the work or behaviour of any probationer, during the period of his probation, is not satisfactory, the Management can terminate his services at any time during the said period after giving him one month's notice or salary of one month in lieu of notice.

4. According to the respondent No. 2, she was appointed on probation by the petitioner-Management by order dated 23rd July, 1990 which was approved by the Education Officer. However, her services were terminated by the order dated 27-3-1992 by the end of the session i.e. after 30-4-1992. Although it is the contention raised on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that she had not received the said order of termination, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice her endorsement to show that she had received the said order. However, it appears from the impugned order of the School Tribunal that even according to the respondent No. 2 she had received the salary upto 30th June, 1992 which would show that on the date of the interim order passed by the School Tribunal, she was not in the actual employment of the school. The learned Counsel for petitioners has, however disputed the fact that the respondent No. 2 was in service till 30th June, 1992 because, according to him, the salary upto the said date was paid because according to rules, the respondent No. 2 was entitled to vacation salary till that date although her services actually stood terminated on 30-4-1992. i.e. the end of the Session.

5. Be that as it may, it is clear that on the date of the interim order, the respondent No. 2 was not in actual service in the petitioner No. 2 School. The question which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the School Tribunal, by its interim order, can direct reinstatement pending final decision in the appeal before it. Although in ex parte order which is confirmed by the School Tribunal after hearing bot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document