Point of Law: Contempt Petition - Merely because an order or decree is executable, that would not take away Court’s jurisdiction to deal with a matter under Act of 1971 on satisfaction that there has been violation of order or decree.

JUDGMENT :

A.S.Chandurkar, J.

This appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, the Act of 1971) raises a challenge to the order dated 12.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Petition No. 239/2015 thereby admitting the contempt petition and framing charge against the appellants.

2. Relevant facts are that the respondent no.1 was serving as an Assistant Teacher with Khateshwar Maharaj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Charitable Trust. Her services came to be terminated on 17.04.2010 and hence she filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, the Act of 1977) before the School Tribunal, Amravati. The School Tribunal by its judgment dated 12.01.2012 partly allowed the appeal and after setting aside the order of termination directed the Management to hold fresh enquiry against the respondent no.1. Since the relief of reinstatement was not granted to the respondent no.1, she filed Writ Petition No.4257/2012. On 27.10.2014 the learned Single Judge modified the judgment of the School Tribunal and held the respondent no.1 entitled to reinstatement. There was a further direction to pay entire back wages to her by 31.01.2015 and in default that amount was to be paid with interest @9% per annum from 01.12.2014 till realization. The aforesaid judgment was sought to be reviewed by filing a review application. On 09.03.2015 the judgment delivered in the writ petition was partly modified. Instead of the relief of actual reinstatement, the services of the respondent no.1 were directed to be notionally reinstated to enable the Management to conduct an enquiry. These orders were the subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal(C) Diary No. 17299/2015. On 29.01.2016 those proceedings came to be dismissed. Consequently the direction as regards notional reinstatement and payment of back wages attained finality. Since the Management which was represented by the present appellants in the writ petition did not comply with the directions as issued, the respondent no.1 filed Contempt Petition No.239/2015. During the course of hearing and after due notice to the parties, the order dated 12.03.2018 referred to above came to be passed. The aforesaid order is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

3. Shri R.L.Khapre, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in framing charge against the appellants in the light of the fact that from 01.12.2010 an Administrator had been appointed to manage the affairs of the school. Referring to the decision in Shivaji Education Society Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2017 (3) Mh.L.J.833 it was submitted that the appeal challenging the order framing charge in the contempt petition was maintainable. As per the directions issued in Writ Petition No. 4257/2012 though the liability to pay back wages was on the Management, in effect it was the Administrator/Education Officer who was responsible to pay the same as he was the officer incharge of the affairs of the school. Referring to the affidavit dated 07.07.2016 filed on behalf of the Education Officer(Secondary), it was submitted that the Education Officer had expressed readiness to release the amount of back wages as per the order passed by this Court. Despite the aforesaid position, the learned Single Judge in the impugned order had rejected this defence raised by the appellants in that regard thereby causing prejudice to the appellants. It was in fact the concerned Head Mistress who had not forwarded the salary bills as a result of which the arrears of salary could not be paid to the respondent no.1. It was submitted that as the appellants were not in the management or control of the affairs of the school, they could not have been saddled with the liability to pay the amount of back wages. In any event it was submitted that after 01.12