Clear communication is essential for resignation acceptance; failure to do so renders termination illegal.

JUDGMENT:

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. The Petition challenges judgment and order dated 1 October 2021 passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai allowing Appeal No.1 of 2020 filed by the Respondent No.4 challenging his ‘otherwise termination’ from 26 November 2019. The School Tribunal, while allowing the Appeal, has set aside the oral termination of the Respondent No.4 and has directed the Petitioner-Management to reinstate him on his previous post as a full time Assistant Teacher for Hindi subject with full backwages and continuity in service.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the Petition are stated thus:

Respondent No.4 came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a temporary basis with effect from 4 July 2008 till 30 April 2009. His services were further extended upto 3 April 2011. In the academic year 2011-12, Respondent No.4 became permanent Assistant Teacher in Hindi subject. In the year 2015, Respondent No.4 was promoted to the administrative post of Supervisor. It is the case of the Petitioner- Management that Respondent No.4 was unable to discharge duties of the post of Supervisor efficiently and there were numerous complaints from staff and students with regard to his attitude and approach to work. It is the case of the Petitioner-Management that Respondent No.4 tendered resignation from services on 16 November 2019. However, instead of putting an end to his services, the Petitioner- Management adopted sympathetic view and gave an offer to him to join as part-time teacher for the academic year 2019-20 for Hindi subject. The Management treats letter dated 26 November 2019 as acceptance of resignation tendered vide letter dated 16 November 2019 and this is how services of Respondent No.4 were brought to an end.

3. Respondent No.4 approached School Tribunal by filing Appeal No.1 of 2020 challenging his oral termination. The Tribunal has proceeded to allow the Appeal by judgment and order dated 1 October 2021 setting aside the oral termination of Respondent No.4 and directing his reinstatement with full backwages and continuity in service.

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the School Tribunal, the present Petition is filed. The Petition came to be admitted by order dated 5 January 2023 and the order of the School Tribunal has been stayed. The Petition is called out for final hearing.

5. Ms. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the School Tribunal has erred in allowing the Appeal filed by Respondent No.4 and by directing his reinstatement ignoring the position that his services were never terminated. She would submit that Respondent No.4 voluntarily resigned from services on 16 November 2019. She would further submit that in law, the two posts of Supervisor and Assistant Teacher are inseparable and therefore, the resignation dated 16 November 2019 from the post of Supervisor would necessarily tantamount to resignation from services of the Petitioner-Management. She would submit that the resignation has been accepted vide letter dated 26 November 2019. That Respondent No.4 was given an offer to join as a part-time teacher, which he has failed to avail. She would submit that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the aspect of acceptance of resignation by the Petitioner-Management and has erroneously treated cessation of services of Respondent No.4 as termination when in fact, the services are brought up to an end by way of acceptance of resignation. She would therefore submit that Respondent No.4 was not entitled to be reinstated in services. She would pray for setting aside the impugned order passed by the School Tribunal.

6. Per contra, Mr