Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, ANIL S. KILOR, G.A. SANAP, JJ.
Smt. Savitri Pushpashil Patel – Appellant
Versus
The President, Shri Ganesh Shikshan Sanstha, Bhandara – Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No.05 of 2013 In Writ Petition No.3470 of 2006(D)
Decided on : 15-03-2022
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Section 11(3), (2), 9, 3, 76(1) and (2) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 - Unfair Labour Practices Act - School - Employee - Seeking Enforcement Of Order - Do provisions of Section 11(3) of MEPS Act provide an independent remedy to a successful employee to approach School Tribunal for seeking enforcement of order passed by School Tribunal in his favour - Are provisions contained in Section 11(3) of MEPS Act merely recommendatory in nature and in aid of directions issued by School Tribunal under Section 11 (2) while deciding an appeal under Section 9 - Whether it is independent remedy - Whether recommendation is in aid to direction issued in appeal - Whether Section 11 (3) of MEPS Act has to be read as an integral part of Section 11 or Section 11 (3) and has to be read independently in given situation - Whether they belong to aided schools or unaided schools - Whether recommendation is mandatory and binding upon State Government or not - Whether petition was required to be dismissed on ground of alternate and efficacious remedy available under Section 11 (3) and Section 13 of MEPS Act - Whether school in question is receiving grant-in-aid from State Government or not – Held, Answer to question no.1, has to be in negative and it is held that Section 11(3) of MEPS Act, does not constitute an independent remedy for an employee, so as to be enforced by instituting separate proceedings before learned School Tribunal - However, Learned School Tribunal will be fully justified in granting a relief of recommendation as contemplated under Section 11(3) of MEPS Act, while deciding appeal under Section 9 of MEPS Act, itself, to be effective after statutory period as provided by Section 11(4) of MEPS Act, has expired, depending whether school in question is receiving grant-in-aid from State Government or not - In answer to question no.2, it is held that provisions contained in Section 11(3) of MEPS Act are merely recommendatory in nature and in aid of directions issued by School Tribunal under Section 11 (2) while deciding an appeal under Section 9 of MEPS Act, however, in so far as schools receiving grant-in-aid from State Government are concerned, any such recommendation made by learned School Tribunal under Section 11(3) of MEPS Act, shall be binding upon State Government, in view of its stand, as placed by way of affidavit in Vilas Shankarrao Deshmukh.
JUDGMENT :
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
1. The present Bench has been constituted by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice to answer the following question :
QUESTION :
For the sake of brevity the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 is hereinafter referred to as the ‘MEPS Act’. The above question, for the sake of better answering, can be split up into two parts as under :
Q.2. Are the provisions contained in Section 11(3) of the MEPS Act merely recommendatory in nature and in aid of directions issued by the School Tribunal under Section 11 (2) while deciding an appeal under Section 9 ?
2. The facts leading to the reference are as under :
| Sr. No. | Dates | Events |
| 1. | 1/8/1986 | The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Secondary School run by the respondent nos.1 and 2 |
| 2. | 7/5/1988 | The appellant was terminated. |
| 3. |
| The appellant challenged his termination order by filing appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act. |
| 4. | 29/11/1988 | The School Tribunal, Nagpur allowed the appeal filed by the appellant thereby directing the reinstatement of the appellant from 7/5/1988 and the Management was directed to get resumed the appellant on duties forthwith. |
| 5. |
| The Management filed Writ Petition No.2873/1988 challenging the judgment of the School Tribunal. |
| 6. | 22/12/1988 | This Court (Single Bench) granted stay to the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal. |
| 7. | 19/2/1997 | This Court (Single Bench) dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution. |
| 8. | 7/5/2002 | The appellant attained the age of superannuation. |
| 9. | 1/3/2005 | The appellant issued registered notice to the Management as the order of the School Tribunal was not implemented despite dismissal of the writ petition. |
| 10. |
| Since no steps were taken by the Management, the appellant filed application under Section 11 (3) of the MEPS Act before the School Tribunal. |
| 11. | 25/4/2005 | The Management opposed the application by filing its reply |
| 12. | 24/4/2006 | The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal directed the Management to pay back wages to the appellant from 7/5/1988 till her superannuation. The Education Officer was also directed to deduct the arrears of emoluments for the said period as per pay scale applicable and pay the same to the appellant within 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. |
| 13. |
| Order passed by the School Tribunal under Section 11 (3) of the MEPS Act was challenged by the Management in Writ Petition No.3470/2006. |
| 14. | 16/6/2011 | This Court (Single Bench) allowed the writ petition holding that the directions so issued under Section 11 (3) of the MEPS Act were beyond the jurisdiction of the School Tribunal. |
| 15. |
| The appellant challenged the order passed by this Court (Single Bench) in Writ Petition No.3470/2006 by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.20/2012. |
| 16. | 7/2/2012 | The Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment held that as the appellant was to be reinstated forthwith from 29/11/1988, the cla |
Section 11(3) of the Act of 1977 is an independent provision and said sub-section does not require that the School Tribunal must exercise power to make recommendation to State Government about deduct....
(1) Appellate Court has no express power to grant relief of back-wages or to decide upon question as to whether period of absence should be treated as duty.(2) Subordinate Legislation – Properly appr....
The withdrawal of an appeal does not necessarily constitute abandonment of the claim, especially when the employee consistently seeks to challenge the termination, and due process must be followed in....
The decision establishes that AICTE norms govern pay scales for technical school employees, distinct from the MEPS Act, ensuring enforcement without requiring amendments to existing rules.
The Delhi School Education Act mandates private schools comply with government salary norms for employees, irrespective of financial status, reinforcing the principle of statutory obligation over har....
The court ruled that a retired employee can be nominated to the Enquiry Committee under Rule 36(2)(b)(ii) of the MEPS Rules, emphasizing a broader interpretation of 'employee' to protect employee rig....
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
