Anil Dattatraya Ade vs Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati & others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2003 Supreme(Bom) 684

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
Kochar R.J. Kharche S.T., JJ.
Anil Dattatraya Ade .... Petitioner.
Versus
Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 137 of 1986, decided on 27-6-2003.
Advocates appeared :
R.K. Deshpande, for petitioner.
M.G. Bhangde, for respondent Nos. 2 3.
A.S. Sonare, A.G.P., for respondent No. 4.

Headnote:MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOL (CONDITION OF SERVICE) REGULATION ACT, 1977 - Section 9 - Termination of services - Petitioner appointed prior to coming into force of Act - Services terminated after coming into force of Act - Petitioner entitled to challenge action of School Management under Section 9 of Act - Date of cause of action has to be considered. - Though on 9.5.1981 the Act was not in force and though it was brought in force from 15.7.1981, the petitioner s right came to be governed and determined under the provisions of the said Act as on that date he was already in employment. It cannot be said that all those employees, who were employed prior thereto would not be governed by the Act only because it was brought in force from 15.7.1981. The rights and liabilities of the parties would be regulated from the date of the Notification bringing the Act into force by the provisions of the Act. It cannot be construed in any other manner so as to lead to absurd result. If an employee who was employed prior to 15.7.1981 was dismissed from employment after the Act came into force, can it be said that he has no right to file an Appeal against the said order of dismissal/termina- tion under Section 9 of the Act merely because on the date on which he was employed the Act was not in force? On the date of his termination the Act gave him protection and gave him legal remedy and legal fora and therefore, he would be entitled to challenge the impugned action of the School Management under the Act. This legal position is no more res integra. If Court accept the contention of Shri Bhangade, it would further logically mean that those employees, who were employed prior to the enforcement of the payment of Gratuity Act, then they will not be entitled to get gratuity for the period prior to the said Act even though they were in employment after the said Act was brought into force. What Court have to consider is that date of occurrence of the dispute or the cause of action and the law, which was in force on that date would govern and regulate the relationship of the parties
       MAH. EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (COND. OF SER.) REGULATION ACT, 1977 - Section 9 - Applicability of Act. - As per records appointment of petitioner was on 9.5.1981 and the Act came into force from 15.7.1981, the services of those who were in service on 15.7.1981 will be governed by the Act and to interpret it any other manner the whole concept will give absurd results. On termination subsequently the Act will provide protection to them.
       MAH. EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (COND. OF SER.) REGULATION ACT, 1977 - Sections 9 and 5 - Scope of rules and provisions thereunder. - Petitioner was appointed for 1981-82 for a period of one year and extension was granted further and placed in regular scale by order of 30.4.1982. This letter giving an extension of 2 years as probation. By 1.7.1983, two years service was completed. The letter of 7.3.1983 that previous extension was to be ignored and order of termination was passed but it will be contrary to mandatory provisions.
       MAH. EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (COND. OF SER.) REGULATION ACT, 1977 - Sections 9 and 5 - Termination from service. - As per records the confirmation on completion of two years service was automatic and under Section 5(2) of the Act. Full backwages may not be proper, because petitioner must have been working elsewhere therefore only 40% of backwages shall be payable.

JUDGMENT - KOCHAR R.J., J.:---The petitioner, a Lecturer by profession, employed in the respondent No. 2-Institute is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed, by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati, and Aurangabad, on 16th January, 1986 in Appeal No. 43/1984 filed by him under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Non-Government Schools (Conditions of Service.) Regulation Act, 1977, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The learned Presiding Officer partly allowed the appeal. The petitioners challenge to the legality and propriety of the order of termination dated 29-6-1984 was not accepted by the Tribunal, as it recorded a finding that the said order of termination was legal and valid, but the learned Presiding Officer granted relief of one months salary (pay and allowances) in lieu of the notice to be paid by the respondent No. 2 within a reasonable time of two months, with further direction to the Government to deduct the said amount, if not paid from the grant-in-aid of the respondent No. 2. In effect the petitioner had failed to get any substantial relief in his appeal and he has, therefore, challenged the impugned judgment and order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in this petition. When he filed the present petition, he claimed to be of the age of 37 years in 1986. He had to wait for a period of 17 years and the turn of the 20th Century to get his turn of hearing of the petition at our hands.

2. Before we deal with the facts and the merits of the petition, we may mention that the Full Bench of our High Court headed by The Honble Chief Justice by the judgment dated 13th March, 2003, reported in (Anil Dattatraya Ade v. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal)1, 2003(3) Bom.C.R. (F.B.)(N.B.)465held that the M.E.P.S. Act is applicable to the Institute of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. We need not dwell on the point of applicability of the said Act as it has been finally concluded by the Full Bench as far as this Court is concerned. The Full Bench has finally concluded in paragraph 70 of the judgment as under :--

"For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 apply to employees working in Pharmacy institutions, and School Tribunals constituted under the Act have jurisdiction to entertain deal with and decide, disputes in exercise of the power conferred by the Act. The view taken by this Court in P.D. Prabhudesai and Mohd. Israr Siddiqui is erroneous and is overruled and the decision in Abdulla Jameel Ahmed Ansari is approved."

3. The facts of the present petition are in a very narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the respondent No. 2-Institute on 9-5-1981 with effect from 1-7-1981 to teach the subject of "Pharmacy" for the academic year 1981-82. It was mentioned in the said appointment letter that the appointment was temporary for the academic year 1981-82 and that he will have to serve the institution at least for two years and that the same period will be his probation period. Thereafter the Principal of the institute by an office order dated 30-4-1982 informed the petitioner that his services were continued further from the next academic year i.e. 1982-83. It was also stipulated therein that the probation period was to be of two years from the date of joining. The petitioner joined the service from 1-7-1981. By an office order dated 7-10-1983, the petitioner was informed that his probation period was extended by one year. It was further stipulated in the said order that he will be informed as and when he would be confirmed finally by an office order dated 29-6-1984. The petitioner was informed that he would be completing the probation period on 30-6-1984 and that it was decided by the management not to continue his services and, therefore, he was relieved from the services on 30-6-1984. B

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(Bom) 684

Cases Referred (4)