Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Maulana Azad Educational Trust, Through the Chairman Dr.Rafiq Zakeria Campus - Petitioners
Versus
Uzma Khanam Mirza Moin Ullah Baig - Respondents
WP No.8837 of 2015
Decided on : 08.12.2015
Exploitation - Employment Dispute - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Section 5(1), Section 5(2), Rule 9(5), Rule 9(7), Rule 9(8), Rule 20, Rule 28(1) - The court discussed the applicability of the MEPS Act, 1977 and the MEPS Rules, 1981 to the petitioner institution and its employees. The court highlighted the provisions of Section 5(1) and 5(2) of the MEPS Act, 1977, Rule 9(5), Rule 9(7), Rule 9(8), Rule 20, and Rule 28(1) of the MEPS Rules, 1981, and their interpretations in the context of the employment dispute, emphasizing the rights of temporary employees and the obligations of the management in making appointments and terminating services.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a minority educational institution, terminated the employment of the respondent, a temporary assistant teacher, leading to an appeal by the respondent challenging the termination. The School Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing reinstatement and backwages for the respondent. The petitioner appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was not made aware of the temporary nature of her appointment and that the termination was not in compliance with the MEPS Act and Rules. The court also noted the exploitation of temporary teachers by the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the respondent's appointment, the compliance with the MEPS Act and Rules in the termination process, and the exploitation of temporary teachers by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent, having worked for two consecutive academic years, was entitled to the protection under Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act, 1977, and that the termination was not in accordance with the MEPS Rules, 1981. The court also emphasized the obligation of the management to follow the prescribed procedures for appointments and terminations.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the School Tribunal's decision and rejecting the request for extension of status quo, citing the exploitation of teachers by the petitioner.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner/Management is aggrieved by the judgment and order delivered by the School Tribunal dated 08.07.2015 by which Appeal No.21/2014 preferred by Respondent No.1/ Employee has been allowed.
3. Strenuous submissions of Shri Deshmukkh, learned Advocate for the Petitioners can be summarized, in brief, as follows:
(a) Petitioner No.1 is a minority educational institution which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1886 and the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.
(b) Petitioner No.2 is an unaided recognized school operated by Petitioner No.1/ Trust.
© The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (herein after referred to as “the MEPS Act, 1977”) and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (herein after referred to as “the MEPS Rules, 1981”) are applicable to the Petitioner Institution and it's employees.
(d) Respondent No.1 was temporarily appointed for the academic year 2012-2013 as an Assistant Teacher.
(e) The said appointment was extended for another academic year 2013-2014 w.e.f. 15.06.2013 considering that the performance of Respondent No.1 was good.
(f) Notice dated 28.04.2014 was issued to Respondent No.1 by which she was intimated that her term of appointment was expiring on 30.04.2014 and she was not supposed to attend the school w.e.f. 01.05.2014. Her signature was obtained on the said notice.
(g) On 23.06.2014 an experience certificate was issued to Respondent No.1 indicating that she was working as an Assistant Teacher in the primary school from 02.07.2012 to 30.04.2014. Her work was satisfactory. She is sincere and hardworking.
(h) An explanation was called for from Respondent No.1 on 04.08.2014 on the ground that she had forcibly signed the muster roll from 16.06.2014 till 02.08.2014.
(i) She submitted her explanation on 05.08.2014.
(j) She made a representation on 08.08.2014 alleging that she was not being permitted to attend duties and to sign the muster roll from 04.08.2014.
(k) She preferred Appeal No.21/2014 on 26.08.2014 before the School Tribunal challenging her oral termination dated 04.08.2014.
(l) The Management filed it's reply to the appeal on 04.12.2014 contending therein that the appeal is filed beyond limitation, cause of action is dated 30.04.2014 and Respondent No.1 was appointed purely on temporary basis.
(m) By the impugned judgment dated 08.07.2015, the School Tribunal has allowed the appeal, set aside the termination dated 04.08.2014, directed reinstatement of Respondent No.1 and has held her to be entitled for 30% backwages from the date of termination till her reinstatement.
(n) The appointment of Respondent No.1 was purely temporary and was extended for another academic year.
(o) There was no advertisement published by the Petitioner Management.
(p) No appointment order was issued to Respondent No.1 as she was appointed temporarily.
(q) The cause of action cannot be said to be 04.08.2014 as Respondent No.1 was given a notice on 28.04.2014 indicating that her last date in employment would be 30.04.2014.
(r) The appeal was delayed beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days under Section 9 of the MPES Act, 1977 since the termination can, at the most, be said to be of 30.04.2014.
(s) No vacant post was available.
(t) No permanent post was available.
(u) Respondent No.1 was aware that she was temporarily appointed.
(v) The notice dated 28.04.2014 effecting her termination from 30.04.2014 has not been challenged.
(w) Forcibly signing the muster roll would not indicate that Respondent No.1 was in employment till 04.08.2014.
(x) Internal correspondence dated 15.06.2012 seeking approval of appointment of teachers in primary section, reappointment of such teachers by internal correspondence dated 30.04.2013 and the notice dated 28.04.2014, were not placed on record before the School Tribunal.
(y) Respon
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
