R. K. ABICHANDANI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners have challenged the common judgment and order dated March 28, 1994 passed by the Gujarat Primary Education tribunal in application Nos. 72, 73, 74, 75 and 107 of 1992 by which the Tribunal declared that the termination of the services of these respondents-teachers from 30-11-1989 by the petitioner-school management was illegal and that they were entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in this group of petitions contended that the provisions of Sec. 40b (1) of the Bombay Primary Education act, 1947 were attracted in the instant case because the termination of service of the respondents-teachers in this group of petitions was not by way of any penalty. It was argued that sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 40b of the Act indicated that the words common judgment and order of Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal in Application nos. 72, 73, 74, 75 and 107 of 1992. "otherwise terminated" occurring in Sec. 40b (1) (a) had a reference to a penal termination only and termination simpliciter was not included in that expression, as a result of which, in respect of termination simpli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document