Incorrect statements made in the application seeking condonation of delay are sufficient to reject the application without any further inquiry. The burden of proof lies on the party approaching the court, and findings must be in accordance with the law laid down by higher courts.

1. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the School Tribunal Nagpur dated 11-4-2005 passed on the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short the said Act). Similarly, order dated 18-7-2005 deciding the preliminary issues and judgment dated 8-8-2005 passed in the aforesaid appeal allowing the same are also under challenge.

2. The respondent No.1 claims to have been appointed on probation on the post of Assistant Teacher on 6-7-1999. The initial appointment was made by Sadbhawana Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha which was running the petitioner No.2 school. The said school thereafter was transferred to petitioner no.1 society and according to respondent No.1, he continued to serve in said institution. On 23-6-2004, respondent No.1 was not permitted to resume his duties and as his services were orally terminated on 21-9-2004 he preferred appeal under Section 9 of the said Act along with an application for condonation of delay. The learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal by order dated 11-4-2005 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Thereafter, the parties were heard on the preliminary issues and by order dated 18-7-2005, said issues came to be answered in affirmative and in favour of respondent No.1. The appeal was thereafter considered on merits and by judgment dated 8-8-2005, the same came to be allowed by granting the relief of reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages in favour of respondent No.1. As stated above, the aforesaid three orders have been subjected to challenge by the management and said school in the present writ petition.

3. Shri A. Shelat, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that though the delay in filing the appeal had been condoned, the petitioner’s school subsequently obtained various documents that would falsify the case of respondent No.1 that was made a ground for condoning the delay. It was submitted that in the application for condonation of delay, respondent No.1 had stated that he was not getting his regular salary since last more than 3 years and hence, for want of funds, he could not file the appeal within limitation. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that since 1998, till November 2001, respondent No.1 who had enrolled himself as an educated unemployed person had received unemployment allowance for said period. The registers in that regard were sought to be relied upon, copies of which have been filed as ANNEXURE VI. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 was also working as an Insurance Agent and was receiving commission for undertaking said work. In support thereof, documents at ANNEXURES VII & VIII have been placed on record. It is, therefore, submitted that respondent No.1 had not approached the School Tribunal with clean hands and had not disclosed that he was receiving unemployment allowance as well as commission in lieu of the work of insurance done by him. He, therefore, submitted that the case of respondent No.1 should not be considered on merits. In support of the said submissions, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and another reported in (2008) 17 Supreme Court Cases 448, MCD Vs. State of Delhi and another, reported in (2005)4 Supreme Court Cases 604, Ramjas Foundation and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2010)14 Supreme Court Cases, 38 and judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in 2012(5) All MR page 581. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 ought not to have been entertained on merits as the reasons furnished by him for seeking condonation of delay were false. In so far as the merits of the findings recorded by the School Tribunal are concerned, it was urged that responden