1. The Plaintiff is a teacher in the defendant No.2 school run by Defendant No.1 (The School). Defendant No.3 is another teacher in the School. The Plaintiff tendered his letter of resignation to the school on 25th August, 1993. The Principal of the School accepted resignation and the Plaintiff’s service were terminated. The Plaintiff challenges the letter or resignation as having been obtained by coercion and upon the premise that it was not accepted by the Principal on the next day. The Plaintiff sought to withdraw his resignation by his letter dated 3rd September, 1993 on the ground that it was obtained by coercion. The Plaintiff further sent a letter dated 3rd September, 1993 to the Principal of the school stating the same facts. The Plaintiff received the acceptance of his resignation from the school under the letter dated 26th August, 1993 after the Plaintiff sought to withdraw his resignation under his letter dated 3rd September, 1993. The Plaintiff claims that he received that letter on 7th September, 1993 antidated to 26th August, 1993.

2. The Plaintiff challenged his termination by his resignation on the ground that it was forcibly obtained before the school tribunal as the competent authority under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) by way of an appeal as provided under Section 9 of the Act.

3. The appeal of the Plaintiff shows how his resignation was obtained on 25th August, 1993 and how it was accepted “on the very next day i.e. 26th September, 1993” received by him on 7th September, 1993 by post. In the appeal the Respondent also contended that his resignation letter was required to be accepted by the management i.e. by the managing committee of the school and the fact that it is shown to be accepted on 26th August, 1993 i.e. the next day it shows that the managing committee was not called and it was not considered by the managing committee. He imputed malafides upon the school as the resignation letter was accepted ‘with great hurry'.

4. The Plaintiff applied for declaration of his resignation letter dated 25th August, 1993 as void and illegal and not binding on him and claimed to be reinstated. The tribunal dismissed his appeal by holding that the resignation letter was not forcibly obtained. The tribunal accepted the contention of the school that the letter dated 26th August, 1993 was not delivered to the Plaintiff on the next day when he was called for the acceptance of his resignation and the fact that he attended the school to accept receipt of the resignation letter shows that it was not forcibly taken. The tribunal accepted the contention of the school that the resignation letter was hand delivered next day but because it was not signed in acknowledgment by Plaintiff, the Principal of the school was advised to send it by registered post also which the Plaintiff received on 7th September, 1993. The tribunal accepted this fact upon the premise that though this specific case of acceptance of resignation was made out in the Written statement filed by the school in the appeal before the tribunal, the Plaintiff had not refuted or denied that case by filing a rejoinder. The tribunal found no merits in the contention raised by the Plaintiff and dismissed the appeal by its order dated 19th April, 1994.

5. The order of the tribunal came to be challenged in the Writ Petition filed by Plaintiff being No.2768/1994 which also came to be dismissed. Review Petition from the order in the Writ Petition also came to be dismissed upon the observation that the Plaintiff had accepted the lapses on his part and tendered his resignation without force or coercion.

6. The Plaintiff accepts that position. The Plaintiff accepts that his resignation was voluntarily given. The Plaintiff has now sued the school not for any declaration with regard to the letter of resignation, but with regard to the acceptance of such resignation.

7. The Plaintiff claims that the le