JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---This contempt petition has been filed under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, for non-compliance of the directions issued by the School Tribunal on October 30, 1998. The School Tribunal by the said order directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners within 30 days from the date of order and to pay all the salary from the date of alleged termination till the petitioners resumes duty, within 60 days. The School Tribunal further directed that if the Management fails to make the payment within 60 days, respondent No. 3, the Deputy Director of Education be informed to deduct the amount from the grants of the respondent School.

After the said, decision, it is stated, that the petitioners approached the respondents and called upon them to comply with the said directions. Since the directions were not complied with, the petitioners eventually gave notice dated February 22, 1999 to the respondents. It is stated in para 5 of the petition that although the petitioners approached the respondent No. 3, even the respondent No. 3 did not comply with the direction, though he was duty bound to do so. Eventually the present contempt petition has been filed on July 14, 1999.

2. This Court issued notice before admission on January 14, 2000. The matter was thereafter listed only on August 2, 2000, when Counsel for the respondents prayed for time to file reply, as a last opportunity. The matter was once again listed on August 8, 2000 before which date the respondents 1 and 2 filed their written submissions. Since respondent No. 3, viz The Deputy Director of Education, did not file reply even till then, this Court directed the respondent No. 3 to remain personally present in Court on 14th August, 2000. Personal presence was later on dispensed with by order dated August 24, 2000.

3. Since it has been observed that too many contempt petitions are pending in this Court for similar relief due to non-compliance of directions issued by the School Tribunal and particularly in the light of the latest decision of justice D.K. Deshmukh reported in (Mohammad Salem Anamul Haque v. S.A. Azami others)1, 2000(2) C.L.R. 287, it was thought proper that this matter should be heard as the leading case so as to find out the correct legal position and to evolve a procedure that would subserve the interest of employees who are required to litigate even for the purposes of execution of the order passed in their favour by the School Tribunal. Mr. Gavai, learned Government Pleader, was requested to assist the Court, who quickly responded to the said request and ensured that necessary instructions were obtained in shortest possible time. It would not be out of place to also mention about the able assistance given by Shri Anjan De, Advocate who appeared for the petitioners.

4. Before I proceed to examine the rival pleas in this case, it would be essential to recapitulate the settled legal position. It is well settled that powers exercised by the School Tribunal have the trappings of the Court and, therefore, it has been held that the School Tribunal is a 'Court'. It is also well settled that non-compliance of direction issued by the School Tribunal amounts to committing contempt of Court within the meaning of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ('the Act'). It is also well settled that the direction issued by the School Tribunal is executable and effective remedy has been provided under the Act in favour of the employee to get the directions executed through the School Tribunal itself. In the circumstances, the only area which requires to be examined is whether under the scheme of the said Act is it possible to contend that the provisions are self contained Code and an effective machinery has been provided by the Legislature for execution of the directions issued by the School Tribunal. In this behalf reference to the provisions of sections 11 and 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document