Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 364
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
State Of Gujarat – Petitioner
Versus
Arjunbhai Amrutlal Nayak & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 8735 Of 2014
Decided On : 08-05-2024
For the Petitioner: Ms. Dharitri Pancholi AGP.
For the Respondents: Mr. P.H. Pathak, Mr. Rajendra Patel, Rule Served.
The management must obtain approval from the District Education Officer for reinstatement and salary payments; otherwise, the consent award is binding only between the management and the employee.
Headnote:(A) Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 - Section 36 - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Petition filed by the State of Gujarat challenging the Tribunal's order reinstating an employee and directing salary payment - The Tribunal's order was quashed as it failed to consider the necessity of the District Education Officer's approval for reinstatement and salary payment. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
(B) Employment Law - The management is primarily responsible for paying salaries to employees, even if the State provides grants - The consent award from the Labour Court is binding only between the management and the employee if the State was not a party. (Paras 11, 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was reinstated after being acquitted of serious allegations but faced non-payment of salary due to the management's failure to obtain necessary approvals.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's order was found to be erroneous as it did not consider the legal requirement for the District Education Officer's approval.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order was just and proper, and the implications of the management's failure to involve the District Education Officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the management must obtain approval from the District Education Officer for reinstatement and salary payments, and the consent award cannot impose financial liability on the State if it was not a party to the proceedings.
Result: Petition allowed; Tribunal's order quashed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner – State of Gujarat under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:-
“A. This Honourable Court be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
B. This Honourable Court be pleased to call for the record and proceedings of the application no. 167 of 2010 from the Learned Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad.
C. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the oral judgment dated 20.09.2013 passed by the Learned Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal in Application No.167 of 2013.
D. Pending admission and final disposal of this petition YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the Oral Judgment dated 20.09.2013 passed by the Learned Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal in Application No. 167 of 2013.
E. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant any other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”
2. Brief facts of the present case are in nutshell as under:-
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that on 24.01.1987 respondent No.1 was appointed as a peon on regular pay scale in Non-Government granted school i.e. Shri I. P. Patel and D. P. School, Kadi running by respondent No.3 – Trust.
2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the managing committee of the school had suspended respondent No.1 on account of serious allegation and complaints made by lady teacher and such decision was supported by the present petitioner and, thereafter, the petitioner had called all the parties for hearing as per the provisions made under Section 27(A)(2)(6) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) by respondent – school management to continue punishment of suspension and after hearing the parties, the punishment of suspension was confirmed.
2.3 It is also the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 was acquitted by the learned Special Judge, Mehsana and as the authority had not made the reference before the Labour Court, respondent No.1 had preferred Special Civil Application No.13641 of 1994 and pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the reference being Reference (LCK) No.197 of 2000 was made before the Labour Court, Kalol wherein the settlement came to be arrived at between respondent No.1 and the School Management and on the basis of the same, respondent No.1 reinstated in service on the post of peon.
2.4 It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent – school had asked for employment number for regular salary from the petitioner whereby the petitioner had informed respondent No.2 that against the order of the District Education Officer, as per the provision of law, it has to challenge before the Tribunal and instead of availing the remedy, respondent No.1 and the school settled the dispute before the Labour Court. The respondent No.1 challenged the action of non-payment before the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal directed the school management to pay the salary regularly and, thereafter, the Tribunal again directed to release an amount of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the applicant i.e. petitioner. Thereafter, the Tribunal vide order dated 20.09.2013 allowed the application preferred by respondent No.1 and observed that the stand taken by the D.E.O. was quashed and set aside. It is held by the Tribunal that the salaries of the petitioner from the date of his reinstatement in service and till such time, he continued in service. It is also held by the Tribunal that the school management shall sent the supplementary bills for the petitioner’s salary and for the period for which he has been served in the school within three months and the D.E.O. shall pass appropriate order within two months.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 20.
