The main legal point established in the judgment is that compliance with the requirements of Rules 14 and 15 for the assessment of employee's work and communication of adverse remarks is essential for the termination of an employee under Section 5(3) of the Act of 1977.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.3487 of 2014 are the management/employer of respondent no.1, and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3525 of 2014 is the employee appointed in place of respondent no.1. Both have impugned the same order of the Tribunal passed in Appeal No.11/2008 dated 28.01.2014 allowing the appeal of respondent no.1 and declaring the termination order dated 10.06.2007 illegal.

3. This is a second round of litigation. After the remand by this Court, the matter was again heard. Bearing in mind the directions of this Court, the learned Tribunal has considered Section 5(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short 'Act of 1977) and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short 'Rules, 1981').

4. It was not disputed that respondent no.1 was appointed by following the due procedure of law on probation for two years by a written order dated 10.02.2006. However, before completing his probation by a written order dated 10.06.2007, his services were terminated as his performance was unsatisfactory. On hearing the respective counsels at length, a short question arises, whether the termination of respondent no.1 is as per Section 5(3) of the Act of 1977 read with Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules, 1981.

5. Rule 14 provides for the assessment of employees work. The employee/teacher has to prepare the plan for his academic programme at the beginning of each term and at the end of the academic year, prepare a report of his work and submit it to the head. The employee has to submit the self-assessment report in the respective Form within one month after the end of the year. Rule 15 provides for writing of confidential reports, etc. The confidential reports should be written annually in respective Forms. The head of the employee is the reporting authority. The confidential report shall be written by the head of the employee who worked for six months or more during an academic year commencing in June. If the head or a teacher is the Secretary of the Management, the confidential report in his respect shall be written by the President of the Management. The confidential reports so written with respect to the employees and the head shall be reviewed by the chief executive officer and the President of management, respectively.

6. Rule 15(3) is relevant to the question raised before this Court, which provides that the respective reporting authority should arrange to communicate confidentially in writing adverse remarks, if any, to the concerned employee or the head, as the case may be, before the end of August every year. Communicating such confidential reports gives the employee an opportunity to make a representation against whom the adverse remarks have been recorded. Rule 15(5) is again important to decide the issue involved before this Court, which provides for effect on failure to write and maintain confidential reports and to communicate adverse remarks to the employees within the period prescribed in sub-rule (3). It has the effect that the work of the employee concerned was satisfactory during the period under report.

7. Learned counsel for the management has argued that the management has exercised the power under Section 5(3) of the Act of 1977. The management assessed the performance of the respondent no.1. Therefore, his services were terminated by notice as required under the said section. He would submit that after the remand, the learned Tribunal ought not to have made the observations against the reasons recorded by this Court in the writ petition. However, the learned Tribunal, exceeding its powers went on interpreting the above Section and Rules and recorded the findings against the law. The learned Tribunal recorded the finding that the confidential reports submitted by respondent no.1 were not genuine. Therefore, th