The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation to comply with Tribunal orders and the consequences of unreasonable non-compliance, leading to contempt and the obligation to pay compensation.

JUDGMENT

N J Jamadar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the counsel for the parties heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. These petitions arise out of a common judgment and order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Aurangabad in Misc. Application No. 1 of 2019 (in Appeal No. MMU-14/1998) and Mis. Application No. 2 of 2019 (in Appeal No. 16 of 1998) dated 01-12-2020. The writ petition Nos. 1113 of 2021 and 1114 of 2021 are preferred by the employers. The writ petition No. 307 of 2021 is preferred by the employees, who are contesting respondents in petitions preferred by the employers. Hence, all these petitions are decided by this common judgment.

3. The petitions arise in the backdrop of the following facts.

A] The petitioner No.1-Abhay Yuva Kalyan Kendra's is a public charitable trust. It runs Abhay Yuva Kalyan Kendra the College of Physical Education (petitioner No.2) (the employers). Mr. Pradeep Patil and Mr. Ravindra Wagh (the employees) were appointed as Lecturers in the college of Physical Education by the appointment order dated 09-10-1991 and 03-09-1990, respectively. The employees were appointed to the posts of Lecturer as they fulfilled the requisite eligibility criteria. The employees continued to render services as the Lecturers. By the communication dated 16-11-1998, the employers terminated the services of the employees w.e.f. 01- 04-1999.

B] The employees assailed the said termination by preferring appeal Nos. 14 of 1998 and 16 of 1998 before the Tribunal. On 01- 07-1999, when those appeals were taken up by the Tribunal, a submission was made on behalf of the employers that the aforesaid termination letters, impugned therein, had been withdrawn. On the basis of the said submission, appeals came to be disposed of by the Tribunal by passing the following order:

"Since the impugned termination letter has been withdrawn, it follows that no cause of action survives for adjudication of question of legality or otherwise of that termination letter. All that is left is whether in view of the circumstances, the Appellant would be entitled to salary from the date of their termination till the date they joined the duties, and onwards. The moment impugned order is withdrawn, if follows that the appellant would be entitled to other consequential relief which depended on the adjudication of the impugned order. Since the impugned order is withdrawn, it follows that the appellants are entitled to consequential relief of salary during the period from 01-04-1999 to 28-06-1999 and onwards, and it is ordered accordingly."

C] By the aforesaid order, the Tribunal had recorded that in view of the withdrawal of the impugned letters of termination, the employees were entitled to consequential benefits and salary for the period 01-04-1999 to 28-06-1999 and onwards. As it transpired, the aforesaid orders were not given effect to and the employees were not reinstated in service nor paid wages.

D] The employees, thus, moved Tribunal under Section 63 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (the Act, 1994) alleging disobedience of the order passed by the Tribunal, by taking out Misc. Application Nos. 18 of 1999 and 19 of 1999. Both the applications were disposed of by a common order dated 16-02- 2000. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-

"1. These contempt petitions now deserves to be disposed off in the set of following circumstances.

2. By order dated 12-01-2000, respondent No.1 was held guilty of contempt of the Tribunal for disobeying the order dated 01-07-1999, and he was fined Rs.500/-. Advocate for the Respondent makes a statement that fine was deposited. The receipt No. 4115 dated 19-02-2000 shows the deposit of fine. The order dt. 12-01-2000 further directed the Respondent No.1 to comply with the order of this Tribunal by or before 19-01-2000. On 19-01- 2000, when matter came before this court, it was stated on behalf of Respondent No.1 that the Appellants