JUDGMENT- B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---We seldom come across such a case while exercising our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner who was working as a peon under an educational society has approached this Court seeking a mandamus against his employer society to implement the order passed by the School Tribunal under section 11 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short the M.E.P.S. Act) in an appeal filed under section 9 of the said Act.

2.The respondent No. 3 (the Nanded Education Society at Nanded) is a society registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, and is running educational institutions like schools, colleges etc. at and around Nanded. The petitioner came to be employed as a peon on or about 3-6-1971 by the respondent No. 3 with a technical break at the end of each academic years. However, the petitioner's service was made permanent with effect from 1-4-1977 and he was given the pay-scale of Rs. 250/- p.m. on 30-7-1977. It appears that from time to time the petitioner was making representations to the employer with a request to transfer him to one of the Schools or colleges run by it and his request was not conceded to. On 17-12-1983 he made an application in writing to his employer requesting to transfer him to one of the colleges run by it and he stated that if his request was not considered, he should be relieved from the service with effect from 1-1-1984. The said request was not decided till 31-12-1983 and he continued to work for the society even after 1-1-1984 as the employer did not relieve him on 1-1-1984 as was requested in his representation dated 17-12-1983. Realising the practical difficulties in real life, by letter dated 10-1-1984 he requested his employer to treat his letter dated 17-12-83 as cancelled and withdrawn. The management had not replied either on the letter dated 17-12-83 or the subsequent withdrawal application dated 10-1-84 and all of a sudden on 19-3-1984 he was informed that he was relieved from service pursuant to his letter dated 17-12-1983 and it appears that the said letter was treated as a letter of resignation. The petitioner therefore, approached the School Tribunal by filing an appeal under section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act. The management opposed this appeal on the grounds that (a) the appeal was not tenable as the appellant-petitioner was not an employee of a private school as defined under the M.E.P.S. Act, (b) even otherwise there was no case of termination of service at the hands of the management and hence, there was no cause of action to file an appeal. Both these preliminary objections were negatived by the Tribunal and the Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 28th September 1984 (in Appeal No. 42/84) allowed the appeal and held that the action of the management in removing the appellant on the plea of resignation was illegal and the said action of the management was set aside with a further direction to reinstate the appellant-petitioner as a peon with effect from 19-3-1984 with back wages. It was further made clear that the management was at liberty either to retain the petitioner in its office or transfer him to any of the Schools/Colleges run by it.

3.This judgment and order of the Tribunal was not challenged by the respondent-society and instead it preferred to file a review application before the Tribunal. The said application was registered as Misc. Application No. 6/84 and it was rejected by an order dated 29-4-1985 mainly on the ground that there was no specific power vested with the Tribunal to review its own order under the scheme of the M.E.P.S. Act. This order of the Tribunal was also not challenged by the respondent society at any time in appropriate writ proceedings and therefore, the order of reinstatement with back wages became final. The employee went on approaching the respondent society with a request to implement the order of the Tribunal for his rein

Click Here to Read the rest of this document