ORAL JUDGMENT: (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.)

1. A Division Bench of this court has referred following questions for consideration by a Larger Bench.

(I) Whether an employee employed in a private primary school recognised by a body or officer referred to in sub-section (2) of section 39 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 can approach the Tribunal under section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977, if he/she is aggrieved by any action of the management as stipulated in the said provision?

(II) In other words, whether the MEPS Act, 1977 applies to employees of a private primary school recognised by a body or officer referred to in subsection (2) of section 39 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947?

2. The Hon’ble the Chief Justice, therefore, constituted this Bench for consideration of the above quoted two questions.

3. The relevant facts are that the Appellant was in the service of Jhulelal Trust School as Asst.teacher. She was working in the primary school. By order dated 26-11-2007 her services were terminated by the management on the ground that she is surplus.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the termination of service, the Appellant filed an appeal under Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (herein after referred to as “the MEPS Act”) before the School Tribunal, New Mumbai. That appeal was registered as Appeal No.10 of 2008. The School Tribunal disposed of that Appeal by order dated 2nd May, 2008 holding that as the Appellant was working in a primary school which was recognised by the Ulhasnagar Municipal School Board, it is not a private school within the meaning of MEPS Act, therefore the Appeal of the Appellant before the School Tribunal was not maintainable.

5. Feeling aggrieved by that order the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5024 of 2008 in this court. The learned single Judge of this court rejected that Writ Petition by order dated 10th October, 2008. For rejecting that petition and upholding the view taken by the School Tribunal in relation to the maintainability of the Appeal under section 9 of the MEPS Act, the learned single Judge relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rita T. Verghese vs. Headmistress, Vidya Mandir English Primary School, 2002(3) Mh.L.J.57.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge rejecting writ petition filed by the Appellant, the Appellant preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.153 of 2010. The Division Bench of this court before whom the Letters Patent Appeal of the Appellant came for hearing found that it is unable to agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in Rita Verghese’s case(supra). The Division Bench found that the provisions of the Bombay Primary Education Act need to be considered. In paragraph 15 the Division Bench has observed thus,

“........ Therefore, with great respect to the Division Bench, the status or position of the Authority giving recognition to the private school, by itself is not decisive. That may not determine and decide the coverage of the private school and its employees....”

The Division Bench referred to the provisions of Sections 39 and 40 of the Bombay Primary Education Act and was of the view that a primary school run by private management which is recognised by Zilla Parishad School Board or by the State Government or by an officer authorised by the State Government or by a Municipal School Board in terms of the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 39 of the Bombay Primary Education Act may be regarded as a private school within the meaning of the MEPS Act. The Division Bench, therefore, framed the above quoted two questions.

7. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both sides. We have also perused the record. We have also read the judgments that were pointed out to us by both sides.

8. MEPS Act was enacted by the Legislature of the State of Maharashtra in the year 1977 and it received assent of the President of India on 16th Mar