JUDGMENT - CHANDRACHUD D.Y. (Dr.), J.:---By an order dated 11th September, 2002 which is impugned in these proceedings, the School Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the resignation which was tendered by the first respondent was not voluntary. There is consequently an order of reinstatement though without back wages.

2. The first respondent was in the service of the petitioner since September, 1993. He was confirmed in service as a lecturer in Industrial Electronics on 16th December, 1995. The first respondent had been deputed to pursue a vocational course which he was pursuing at Walchand College of Engineering at Sangli. From the evidence which was recorded before the Tribunal it emerges that on 19th June, 2001 during the term of the vocational course, the first respondent was directed to attend the college. No reason was assigned as to why he was asked to visit the college. The First respondent was then asked to leave. Again on 26th June, 2001 the First respondent was directed to report to the college where he was compelled to sit in the office of the Principal till 5.00 p.m. Thereafter he was taken to the office of the Chairman, where the Vice-Chairman and the Principal were also present. It is in the course of this meeting that, according to the respondent, he was threatened and compelled to resign. The Chairman accepted the resignation on the very same day allegedly without a resolution of the Managing Committee and the dues of the first respondent were paid over immediately. For the first time in the course of the deposition of the principal what was sought to be stated was that the first respondent had been called to the college because though he had been permitted to attend the vocational course in a college at Kolhapur, he was doing so at Sangli. The School Tribunal has, in my view, correctly come to the conclusion that this defence was without any basis and that it was not even set up in the reply which was filed before the Tribunal. On 8th July, 2001 the first respondent wrote a letter to the Management withdrawing his resignation.

3. Section 7 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 lays down the procedure for the submission of a resignation by an employee. Under that section, if any employee intends to resign his post in a private school, he has to draw up a letter of resignation in duplicate, sign both the copies and put the date thereon. The statute provides that he may then forward a copy to the Management by registered post and keep the other copy with him. The legislature has provided the safeguard that the resignation by an employee must be in the form of a written communication and that it must be remitted by a specified mode viz. by registered post. These safeguards have been provided specifically to obviate situations such as the present where the allegation, (found true upon inquiry by the Tribunal) is that the employee was called by the Management and threatened that he would be terminated unless he resigned.

4. My attention has been drawn to a judgment of my learned Brother Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar in (Balaleshwar Shikshan Mandal v. Jaywant Bhaguji Gadekar)1, Writ Petition 6046 of 2002, decided on 10th June, 2003 reported in 2004(1) Bom.C.R. 421. That was case where an Assistant Teacher who had been appointed a private school resigned voluntarily on 16th August, 1998 and which resignation was placed before the Managing Committee in a meeting held on 29th November, 1998 when it was accepted. A communication in that regard was sent to the petitioner on 9th December, 1998. The fact that the petitioner had submitted a resignation on 16th August, 1998 was not disputed, nor was the fact that the resignation was handed over to the Chairman and that it had been accepted. In these circumstances, Khanwilkar, J., held that once the resignation was accepted, the matter stood finally concluded. The Tribunal had proceeded on the basis that the resignation h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document