JUDGMENT - THAKKER C.K., C.J.:---This appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 3817 of 2002 on 2nd August, 2002. The learned Single Judge by the said order, confirmed the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, New Mumbai in Appeal No. 12 of 2000.

2.The service of the respondent-teacher was terminated and the said action was challenged by the teacher by filing an appeal before the School Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the order passed against the teacher was illegal on more than one ground. It was observed that as per the order of appointment dated 10th June, 1999, the Management was required to give notice of two months before terminating services of the petitioner. Since only one months notice was given, the action was illegal. It was also observed that as the service of the petitioner was not terminated by "Management" as defined under section 2(12) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, the action was liable to be set aside.

3.Being aggrieved by the said order, the management approached this Court. The learned Single Judge confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal. That order is challenged in the present letters patent appeal.

4.The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the order passed by the appellant was legal, valid and in consonance with Rule 28(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 28 reads as under:

"28(1) The services of a temporary employee other than on probation may be terminated by the Management at any time without assigning any reason after giving one calendar months notice or by paying one months salary (pay and allowances, if any) in lieu of notice.

In the case of an employee entitled to vacation, the notice shall not be given during the vacation or so as to cover any part of the vacation or within one month after vacation." (Emphasis supplied)

5.The Counsel contended that when the statutory provision enjoins the management to issue notice of one month, and when such notice was given, the action cannot be said to be bad in law and Tribunal and the learned Single Judge committed error of law and of jurisdiction in granting relief to the respondent-teacher. The Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge observed that provision of Rule 28(1) is enabling in nature. If the management by a specific agreement, agrees to give two months notice, the teacher can insist upon such notice. When such notice was not given, it was open to him to contend that the action was not legal and lawful.

6.There is yet another reason. In the instant case, the conditions of appointment are also clear. Two conditions are relevant and they are condition Nos. 6 and 7. They read as under:

"(6) This appointment is for a period of one year and you shall agree to serve us at least for this period.

(7) After the above period of one year, termination of this appointment may be done by either party giving two months notice to the other, in writing."

7.Thus, condition No. 6 states that for a period of at least one year, it was obligatory on the teacher to serve the management and it was not open to him to leave service. Condition No. 7 starts with expression "After a period of one year" meaning thereby that even after a period of one year would be over, such termination can be effected by notice from either side but it should be two months notice. If in the light of above conditions and in the facts and circumstances, a view was taken by the Tribunal confirmed by the learned Single Judge that notice of two months was necessary, it cannot be said that illegality was committed.

8.The Tribunal also observed in the order that the order of termination was passed by the Head Master and not by the management. The Head Master cannot be said to be a "Management" within the meaning of said expression used in the Act. That contention does not appear to have been pressed befor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document