Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 832

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

Bharat Ramchandra Shirsat – Petitioner
Versus
Nimsakhar Society and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 14979 of 2022
Decided On : 08-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Kadam, Adv.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rushikesh Barge, Advocate, Mr. P.J. Gavhane, AGP.

Employers must follow mandatory disciplinary procedures and statutory due process before terminating an employee. When continuous service is established, an employer cannot unilaterally terminate without inquiry or notice. Illegal termination warrants reinstatement with full backwages, especially where the employer fails to produce mandatory documentation.

Headnote:(A) Labour Law - Employment conditions - Termination of service - Procedural requirements - Mandatory compliance with statutory regulations - Employer's duty to follow due process prior to termination of an employee, regardless of whether staff is deemed temporary or permanent - Failure to hold departmental inquiry, issue show-cause notice, or adhere to principles of natural justice renders termination illegal. (Paras 9, 14, 15)

(B) Appellate Review - Powers of Tribunal - Duty to draw adverse inferences - Failure to consider non-production of vital documents by the employer regarding staff records and recruitment - Courts must correct errors of law or perversity in findings where there is a failure to observe procedure or reliance on incorrect factual premises regarding status of an employee. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having served for a decade in educational institutions managed by the same entity, was orally terminated without notice or inquiry. The lower tribunal dismissed the appeal, erroneously classifying the petitioner as temporary and failing to acknowledge the continuity of service. The petitioner sought reversal, contending that the termination violated established employment regulations.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the employment was continuous and the termination, performed without adherence to procedural safeguards, was invalid. The management failed to justify the retrenchment or the appointment of a successor. The court held that the lack of procedural compliance, including the absence of a departmental inquiry and proper notice, mandated reinstatement.

Issues: Whether the oral termination of an employee with a decade of service without following procedural norms is legally permissible and whether the lower authority erred in denying reinstatement and full recovery of backwages.

Ratio Decidendi: An employer cannot unilaterally terminate employees without following mandated disciplinary procedures and statutory requirements. Continuous service, despite changes in designation or internal transfers, establishes a status entitling the employee to due process. Failure to produce vital employment records upon judicial direction warrants an adverse inference, and compensation in lieu of reinstatement is inadequate for illegal termination involving unblemished service.

Result: Writ petition allowed, termination set aside, immediate reinstatement with full backwages and interest ordered.

Table of Content
1. procedural history of termination and tribunal litigation. (Para 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's claim for reinstatement based on permanent employment status. (Para 4)
3. respondent's contention regarding temporary employment and document fabrication. (Para 5)
4. judicial finding of deemed permanency and failure of due process. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
5. mandatory prior approval for retrenchment and illegality of oral termination. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. court order for reinstatement with full backwages and interest. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kadam, learned Advocate for Petitioner, Mr. Barge, learned for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Gavhane, learned AGP for Respondent – State.

2. Writ Petition is filed on 05.11.2022 by Bharat Ramchandra Shirsat, employee of N.E.S High School and Junior College (for short “N.E.S. High School”) managed by Respondent No.1 – Trust. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are President and Secretary of Respondent No.1 – Trust and Respondent No.4 is Principal of the Institution. Respondent Nos.5 and 7 are Education Officer and Deputy Director of Education – State. Respondent No.6 is the Education Institution managed by Respondent No.1 – Trust wherein Petitioner was originally employed. Judgment dated 23.09.2022 passed by School Tribunal, Pune is assailed in the present Writ Petition. Petition is not admitted till today and by consent of parties it is heard finally.

3. Briefly stated, in September 2009, Petitioner was appointed as Librarian in Respondent No.6 – College which was managed by Respondent No.1 – Trust and Respondent No.7 – State granted sanction for his appointment vide Order dated 13.07.2011. Petitioner worked as Librarian in Respondent No.6 – College until October 2014 when Respondent No.1 closed Respondent No.6 – College due to declining enrollment of students. On 30.11.2014, Respondent No.1 transferred Petitioner to another Educational Institution managed by Respondent No.1 being N.E.S. High School and permanently appointed him to the post of Junior Clerk.

3.1. On 22.07.2019, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 orally terminated services of Petitioner and appointed one Charansingh Laxman Ranaware who is arrayed as Respondent No.8 in the present Petition. On 09.10.2019, Petitioner filed statutory appeal under Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short “MEPS Act”) before School Tribunal, Pune.

3.2. During the course of hearing before School Tribunal, Petitioner filed application dated 14.12.2020 calling upon Respondents to produce certain documents in their possession pertinent to adjudication of the dispute. On 10.01.2022, School Tribunal directed Respondents to produce the documents requested by Petitioner.

3.3. On 22.03.2022, Petitioner filed his Affidavit of No – Employment claiming full salary from 22.07.2019 till date of reinstatement from Respondent. On 31.03.2022, Respondent No.1 filed application for amendment of Written Statement and subsequently Petitioner filed Written Notes of Argument. Learned School Tribunal dismissed the Appeal by judgment dated 23.09.2022. Hence present Petition.

4. Mr. Kadam, learned Advocate for Petitioner would submit that impugned judgment dated 23.09.2023 is passed without due consideration of facts and material on record and therefore it is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. He would submit that Petitioner is duly qualified holding degrees of Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) and Bachelor of Library Science (B.Lib.Sc.) and was appointed as Librarian in Respondent No.6 – College in September 2009 which appointment was duly sanctioned by Respondent No.7 on 13.07.2011.

4.1. He would submit that from Academic Year 2009 – 2010 till Academic Year 2014 – 2015, Petitioner sincerely discharged his duties as Librarian in Respondent No.6 – College and received his salary. He would submit that in 2014, Respondent No.6 – College suffered from lack of student enr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Bom) 832

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYMILIND N. JADHAV, J. Bharat Ramchandra Shirsat – PetitionerVersusNimsakhar Society and Ors. – RespondentsWrit Petition No. 14979 of 2022Decided On : 08-06-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

Bharat Ramchandra Shirsat – Petitioner
Versus
Nimsakhar Society and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 14979 of 2022
Decided On : 08-06-2026