Failure to reinstate and pay back wages constituted a continuing wrong, allowing the contempt petition to be filed beyond the limitation period.

JUDGMENT :

A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.

1. The order passed by the learned Single Judge on 11.01.2016 in Contempt Petition No.79/2015 thereby recording a prima-facie finding that the appellants were liable for action under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and also under Article 215 of the Constitution of India coupled with the further order of framing charges against the appellants is the subject matter of challenge in this contempt appeal filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act of 1971’).

2. Relevant facts leading to the filing of the present proceedings are that the respondent no.1 was engaged as a ‘Junior College Teacher’ that was being managed by Shri Sudhakarrao Gram Vikas Pratisthan, Dangargaon of which the appellant no.1 is the Secretary. The respondent no.1 rendered services at Vivekanand Junior College of which the appellant no.2 is the Head Master. On 27.11.1998 the services of the respondent no.1 were terminated. This order of termination was challenged by filing an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act of 1977’). The learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal by his judgment dated 07.02.2007 allowed the said appeal and after setting aside the order of termination, it was directed that the respondent no.1 be reinstated in service and also be paid back wages from 27.11.1998 till his reinstatement within a period of 60 days. This judgment of the School Tribunal was challenged by the Management and the Junior College in Writ Petition No.974/2007 which came to be dismissed summarily on 15.01.2008.

3. Since the judgment of the School Tribunal was not complied with, the respondent no.1 filed criminal complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class by invoking the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1977. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 05.07.2014 convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 13 of the Act of 1977. They were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

The respondent no.1 then approached the School Tribunal on 16.12.2014 raising a grievance that despite the judgment of the learned Magistrate on 05.07.2014, the appellants had refused to reinstate the respondent no.1 and pay him his back wages. These proceedings were stated to be under Section 13 of the Act of 1977.

4. The respondent no.1 thereafter on 03.03.2015 filed Contempt Petition No.79/2015 under Section 12 of the Act of 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. After issuance of notice to the respondents therein, the learned Single Judge on 11.01.2016 took cognizance of the alleged contempt by admitting the contempt petition and framing charges against the appellants as to why they should not be punished for wilfully disobeying the judgment of the School Tribunal dated 07.02.2007. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellants have challenged the same in the present appeal. During the pendency of the appeal further proceedings in Contempt Petition No.79/2015 were stayed.

5. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that Shri S.M.Vaishnav learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge was not justified in taking cognizance of the alleged non-compliance of the judgment of the School Tribunal dated 07.02.2007. As per that judgment the respondent no.1 was to be reinstated in service and his back wages were to be paid within a period of sixty days thereof. The respondent no.1 having invoked the jurisdiction in the context of noncompliance of the order passed by the School Tribunal had initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the Act of 1977 on 31.08.2008. In these proceedings the appellants had been convicted and thus it having been held that the appellants were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 13 of the Act of 1977, there was no oc