IMPORTANT POINT
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 employment termination under the MEPS Act.

JUDGMENT

Gauri Godse, J. - This petition challenges the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal filed under section 9 of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 ('MEPS Act') before the School Tribunal. The petitioner preferred the appeal challenging the order of termination dated 6th October 2001 passed by respondent no. 4 (management) and for issuing directions to reinstate the petitioner as headmaster with full back wages and continuity of service w.e.f. 6th October 2001.

Petitioner's Case:

2. The petitioner was appointed headmaster by the management on 19th June 1991. In the year 2001, the order dated 6th October 2001 intimated him that he had been removed from the post of headmaster w.e.f. 6th October 2001. Hence, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 99 of 2001 with a prayer to declare the order dated 6th October 2001 amounting to reduction in rank to be illegal. The petitioner thus prayed for reinstatement as headmaster.

3. It is the petitioner's case that after he was reduced in rank w.e.f. 6th October 2001, the petitioner attended the school on 9th October 2001. It is his case that after he was reduced in rank, the immediate next date, i.e. 7th October 2001, was a Sunday and on 8th October 2001, the petitioner was on casual leave. Hence, on the immediate next day, i.e. 9th October 2001, he attended the school. The petitioner was allowed to work in the school; however, the muster was not made available for his signature. Hence, according to the petitioner, he had filed an application with the in-charge headmaster, requesting him to be allowed to sign the muster. The petitioner had submitted various representations requesting to allow him to sign the muster as an assistant teacher; however, the in-charge headmaster did not allow the petitioner to sign the muster. Hence, on 21st January 2002, the petitioner filed another appeal bearing Appeal No. 10 of 2002 before the School Tribunal challenging the otherwise termination dated 9th October 2001.

4. In the Appeal No. 10 of 2002, management filed reply to the interim application and to the appeal on 20th March 2003. Management contended that the petitioner was directly appointed as headmaster and was not promoted to the post. Hence, management's contention was that the petitioner was not reduced in rank, but his services were terminated by the order dated 6th October 2001.

5. In view of the stand taken by the management in Appeal No. 10 of 2002, the petitioner filed an application on 6th January 2004 in the earlier Appeal No. 99 of 2001 for permission to carry out an amendment to correct the order dated 6th October 2001 as the order of termination instead of a reduction in rank. The said application was rejected.

6. In such circumstances, the petitioner withdrew both the aforesaid appeals and filed a third appeal on 22nd June 2004 for challenging the order of termination dated 6th October 2001. Since there was a delay in filing the said appeal, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2004 for condoning the delay of about 9 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner contended in the said application for condonation of delay that due to certain lacunas, he withdrew the earlier appeals on 16th June 2004 and took immediate steps to file a fresh appeal.

Application for condonation of delay was allowed on 6th February 2006, and the appeal was numbered as Appeal No. 4 of 2006. The said Appeal No. 4 of 2006 was heard on merits, and by Judgment and Order dated 29th November 2008, the School Tribunal allowed the appeal declaring the order of termination dated 6th October 2001 as illegal, improper and bad in law and thus, quashed and set aside the termination order. The School Tribunal directed the management to reinstate the petitioner in service as headmaster with full back wages and continuity in service w.e.f. 6th October 2001. The management was also directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5000/- to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said