Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 1962
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Osmanabad District Swatantra Sainik Samiti & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Jagannath Pandurang Kshirsagar & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 4372 of 1994
Decided On : 03-12-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri Ajinkya Kale h/f Shri S.B. Talekar
For the Respondent 2: Shri V.G. Shelke
For the Respondent 3: Deleted vide order dated 15.10.2015
The legal principle of clean hands and suppression of material facts is crucial in employment disputes and can lead to the dismissal of appeals.
Headnote:
FRAUD - Employment Dispute - [No specific act-section referenced] - The court found that the respondent had suppressed his employment with another school and played a fraud on the court by claiming oral termination. The court relied on the legal principle of clean hands and suppression of material facts, as established in the case of Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P., [(2013) 2 SCC 398], to quash the judgment and dismiss the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the judgment of the School Tribunal, which directed them to reinstate the respondent as Headmaster with backwages. The respondent claimed oral termination, but the petitioners denied it and provided evidence of the respondent's employment at another school.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had suppressed his employment with another school and played a fraud on the court. It held that the School Tribunal had no cause of action and quashed the judgment, dismissing the appeal.
Issues: Dispute over the termination of the respondent's employment and his subsequent actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principle of clean hands and suppression of material facts, as established in the case of Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P., to dismiss the appeal.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the judgment of the School Tribunal was quashed, and the appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed.
1. This petition was admitted on 17.2.1995. Interim relief in the nature of staying the direction to pay backwages was granted by the learned Division Bench of this Court. Subsequently, since the matter fell within the realm of the Single Judge Bench, this petition is placed before this Court for final hearing.
2. None present on behalf of respondent No.1, despite service of court notice. Learned AGP appears on behalf of respondent No.2.
3. The petitioners have challenged the judgment of the School Tribunal dated 18.8.1994 in Appeal No.60 of 1990, by which the School Tribunal has set aside the oral termination of respondent No.1 and the petitioners are directed to reinstate him on the post of Headmaster with continuity of service and backwages.
4. Shri Kale, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners submits that respondent No.1 had brought a case of oral termination dated 12.6.1990 before the School Tribunal. His contention was that he was prevented from signing the Muster Roll with effect from 12.6.1990. Per contra, the petitioners had stated through their written statement that respondent No.1 was never terminated, much less orally. There was no cause of action as there was no termination. It was pointed out that respondent No.1 on his own request was posted as Headmaster of the Siddheshwar Nivasi Vidhyalaya, Warwanti by order dated 2.6.1990. Though he accepted the order, he had a change of thought and by refusing to acknowledge the receipt of the order, he took up a plea of oral termination.
5. Shri Kale further submits that in the backdrop of the contention / stand put forth by the petitioners, respondent No.1 could have volunteered to report for duties as a Headmaster by moving an application before the School Tribunal. Of his own choice, he did not prefer to report for duties, despite the contention of the petitioner / management that he has not been terminated. It, therefore, indicates that he was more interested in pursuing his stand of oral termination and factually had no intention of reporting for duties.
6. Shri Kale further points out an inspection report placed on record from page Nos. 47 to 53. He submits that it is an inspection report of the Terana High School, Osmanabad, which was on “No grant basis”. Date of inspection is 22.10.1994 at Sr. No.4 on page No.47. Date of last inspection is 29.12.1993. Respondent No.1 has signed as the Incharge Headmaster of the said School. His name is shown at Sr. No.1 in the list of Staff Members on Page 53 indicating his designation “Incharge Headmaster”. As on 22.10.1994, he is shown to have put in four years in service out of a total service of eleven years.
7. Shri Kale submits that this document has not been refuted by respondent No.1, inasmuch as, it indicates that respondent No.1 had preferred to abandon his service with the petitioners and had joined the Terana High School, Osmanabad. As such, on the date of the institution of the appeal, in 1990, he had joined the Terana High School, by keeping the petitioners in dark. He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside, only on account of respondent No.1 having played a fraud on the School Tribunal as well as on the petitioner.
8. Respondent No.1, who had initially appeared on Caveat and was represented by an Advocate, has not preferred to file his affidavit-in-reply.
9. Learned AGP submits that the Education Officer has no role to play in this matter.
10. I find from the impugned judgment that though a specific stand was taken by the petitioners that respondent No.1 has not been terminated and is remaining absent of his own accord, the School Tribunal could have disposed off the appeal by directing the appellant / respondent No.1 to report for duties with promptitude. If he had any grievance against the order dated 2.6.1990, he could have preferred a separate appeal for assailing the said order by which he was posted as Headmaster by the petitioners at their Siddheshwar Nivasi
