2026:BHC-AS:801 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5878 OF 2024 Vasantdada Patil Pratishthan Throu. The Registrar & Anr. ...Petitioners Digitally signed by SHRADDHA SHRADDHAKAMLESH K TA A L M E L K E A S R H T D A a L te E : KAR Versus

2026.01.09 14:08:46 +0530 Bharati Ashok Mandhare & Anr. …Respondents Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Shailesh S. Pathak for Petitioner.

Mr. Vinay Menon i/b Ms. Trupti V. Chavan, for Respondent.

CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

DATE : JANUARY 5, 2026 JUDGEMENT :

1. Rule. By consent of parties, made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing.

Context and Factual Background:

2. The core question presented for consideration by the Petitioners, Vasantdada Patil Pratishthan (“Employer”) and Vasantdada Patil Pratishthan’s College of Engineering and Visual Arts (“College”), is whether Respondent No.1, Bharati Ashok Mandhare (“Employee”) could at all have invoked the statutory entitlement to challenge termination of employment under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (“Universities Act”) having invoked earlier, the statutory entitlement to question allegedly unfair labour practices under The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (“MRTU & PULP Act”).

3. A secondary question is whether the judgement and order dated January 25, 2024 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the University and College School Tribunal, Mumbai (“School Tribunal”) setting aside a dismissal order dated October 11, 2023 (“Dismissal Order”) is faulty on the ground that the School Tribunal ought to have inexorably remanded the matter for reconsideration by the Petitioners without entering upon the merits of the accusations and setting aside the Dismissal Order.

4. The Employer is a registered public trust which runs the College, which is affiliated to Respondent No.2, University of Mumbai (“University”). The Employee had joined the College as a Clerk on ad hoc basis on April 1, 1991. With subsequent transfers and elevations, eventually the Employee was functioning as an Accounts Officer as on the date of the Dismissal Order.

5. The Employee was accused of failure to submit financial statements and ensuring other compliances, and was served with a Show Cause Notice on July 1, 2015. The Employee was transferred on August 5, 2015 and in the new role as Exam Superintendent, on July 26, 2019, the Employee was served with a memo for wrongly uploading marks relating to communication skills instead of applied chemistry II in respect of 65 students in the First Year of the Engineering College. The Employee is said to have admitted to a bona fide inadvertent mistake and requested a lenient view.

6. Eventually, the Employee was suspended from employment on March 23, 2022. A statement of allegations was issued by the Employer to the Employee on April 28, 2022. The allegations are said to have included those for which action had already been taken. On June 24, 2022, the Employee invoked the MRTU & PULP Act challenging the suspension as an unfair labour practice before the jurisdictional Industrial Court.

7. On January 7, 2023 the Industrial Court held that it cannot be ruled out that the Employee was carrying out clerical duties and could eventually be regarded as a workman. The Industrial Court rejected the request for an outright denial of jurisdiction as claimed by the Employer, and also on merits, did not think it necessary to stall the enquiry proceedings and permitted them to continue.

8. The Employer conducted proceedings, which culminated in a report and findings on October 7, 2023, which led to the Dismissal Order being passed on October 11, 2023.

9. The Employee challenged the Dismissal Order before the School Tribunal. By the Impugned Order, the School Tribunal held that the appeal was indeed maintainable; that the enquiry was vitiated; that the employee was being punished twice for the same allegations; and that the Emplo