The main legal point established is the requirement for fair and just enquiry proceedings in cases of termination, ensuring the principles of natural justice are upheld.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Bhavake, learned Advocate for Petitioner, Mr. Sagare, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. Nimbalkar, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 – State.

2. This Writ Petition challenges the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 06.03.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai (for short ‘Tribunal’) in Appeal No.MUM/75/2002 filed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short ‘MPES Act, 1977’) and Rules, 1981 (for short ‘MPES Rules, 1981’) framed thereunder dismissing Appeal of the Petitioner against the impugned order of his termination dated 19.08.2002 passed by the Respondents.

3. Briefly stated, such of the relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the Writ Petition are as under:-

3.1. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Private School i.e. Bhimjyoti Vidyalaya (i.e. Respondent No.3) on 13.06.1992. His services were terminated by Respondents namely Respondent No.1 – Chief Executive Officer of Bhimjyoti Vidyalaya on 19.08.2002 on the basis of the findings and enquiry report of the Enquiry Committee with effect from 23.09.2002. Petitioner served the Respondent No.3 – School for 10 years.

3.2. Petitioner belongs to the Nomadic Tribe – (III) ‘Vanjari’.

3.3. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 represent the Management of the School. They are collectively referred to as Respondents for the sake of convenience.

3.4. Respondent No.3 was set up in a backward area and therefore State Government of Maharashtra sanctioned aid to the said school with effect from the year 1994. Prior thereto payment of salary to the teachers was erratic but after the year 1994 staff members of the School sought and demanded salary to be paid as per regular pay scale.

3.5. It is Petitioner’s case that he took the lead and agitated the above issue by submitting a joint representation on behalf of staff members to the Respondents for receiving full salary as per Rules and Regulations.

3.6. In the years 1997 – 1998, Government of Maharashtra sanctioned 50% grant-in-aid to Respondent No.3 – School. In the years 1998 – 1999, the grant-in-aid was initially increased to 75%, but thereafter it was increased to 100%. On learning that Respondent No.3 was receiving 100% grant-in-aid from the State Government of Maharashtra, staff members of Respondent No.3 – School once again rallied around Petitioner and they approached the Respondents with a request to consider their demand for regular payment of salary as per Rules.

3.7. According to Petitioner on 16.11.1997, a joint meeting was called by Respondents with staff members and certain arbitrary conditions were imposed upon them requiring them to work on consolidated wages for two years; that their salary would be receivable by them for the academic years 1997 – 1998, 1998 – 1999 and 50% of the salary for the academic years 1999 – 2000 and 2000 – 2001 should be returned by them to the Management; that from academic years 2001 – 2002, till the retirement of each employee the Management would be entitled to deduct 10% from their salary for retention and arrears of salary payable to all employees as per recommendations of Vth Pay Commission would be retained by the Management entirely. According to Petitioner, since the aforesaid conditions were not acceptable to the staff members, they demanded payment of their entire salary as per entitlement. The entire staff members therefore become united under the leadership of the Petitioner and made collective representation / complaint to the Management as also to the Respondent No.5 – Education Department.

3.8. Respondent No.5 – Education Department forwarded the complaint received from the staff to the Respondents for redressal. Number of meetings were held thereafter between the parties but Respondents refused to release their regular salary. Due to this staff members resorted to agitation under the leadership of the Petitioner.

3.9. Du