JUDGMENT - Smt. DESAI RANJANA, J.:—In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that a complaint under section 13(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 ("the said Act" for short) is maintainable before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. She has also prayed that necessary directions be issued to the concerned Magistrate to entertain and try her complaint.

2.The petitioner was working as Headmistress of Urdu High School run by respondents 1 and 2 at Osmanabad. Her services were terminated on 2-3-02 in view of the enquiry conducted by the management. The petitioner filed Appeal No. 30 of 2002 in the School Tribunal at Aurangabad ("the Tribunal" for short), challenging the legality of the said order. The said appeal was allowed the termination order was quashed and respondents 1 to 3 i.e. the State of Maharashtra, President of Shams Education Society, Rais Galli, Osmanabad and secretary of the said Society respectively were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages by order dated 30-9-03.

3.According to the petitioner, she made number of applications to the respondents requesting them that she may be allowed to join the duty in view of the judgment and order dated 30-9-2003 passed by the Tribunal. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad also directed respondent 1 to comply with the said judgment. However, the petitioner was not allowed to join the service.

4.It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 1 and 2 have failed, without any reasonable excuse, to comply with the judgment and order of the Tribunal and, therefore, they committed offence punishable under section 13 of the said Act. The petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Osmanabad under section 13 of the said Act. However, the learned Magistrate was of the view that the said complaint was not tenable. According to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate, therefore, heard her Advocate on the maintainability of the said complaint and the jurisdiction of the criminal Court to entertain it. Since the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the complaint was not maintainable, on 27-11-2003, the petitioner did not press the complaint at that stage. The learned Counsel of the petitioner put an endorsement on the complaint "Not pressed at this stage." In view of this endorsement, the learned Magistrate disposed of the complaint by noting "Complaint not pressed, hence be returned to the complainant". According to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate was wrong in even questioning the maintainability of the complaint. He ought to have entertained the complaint. In this connection, he relied on (Mohammad Salam Anamul Haque v. S.A. Azmi others)1, 2001(Supp. 2) Bom.C.R. 37 and (Vilas Shankarrao Deshmukh another v. S.A. Ghode, Principal, Navprabhat Vidya Mandir Junior College, Thanegaon others)2, 2001(2) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)116. In view of the above settled legal position, the learned Counsel urged that the concerned Magistrate be directed to entertain the complaint.

5.We are of the view that there is substance in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In Mohammad Salams case (supra), the petitioner therein (for convenience, hereafter referred to as "the employee") was in service of the respondent-school. His services were terminated by the management. Therefore, he filed an appeal before the Tribunal under section 9 of the said Act. His appeal was allowed by the Tribunal. The management was directed to reinstate the employee in his original post with backwages. The management filed a writ petition in this Court. However, the order of the Tribunal reinstating the employee in service with full backwages was not stayed by this Court. Though the Tribunal had made an order in favour of the employee, the management did not comply with that order. The employee served a notice upon the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document