1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7191 OF 2008 President, Samajik Sanskrutik Congress Maharashtra, Mumbai & Ors. ... Petitioners. Vs. Sukhdeo Bapu Pawar & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. Amit A. Korande for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents. ..... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. November 14, 2008. P.C. The First Respondent was appointed as a peon by the Petitioners who conduct a Secondary School, on 15th June 1992. In the year 1996, the First Respondent was prevented by the Petitioners from signing the Muster Roll. The First Respondent moved the School Tribunal treating the conduct of the management as a termination from service. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted reinstatement with back wages. The order of the Tribunal granting reinstatement was confirmed on 19th October 2007 by a 2 Learned Single Judge of this Court while the grant of back wages was set aside. The case of the management is that it had decided to conduct night study classes for students of the tenth standard. A memo was issued to the First Respondent on 12th February 2008 for having arrogantly behaved with the Principal. It was the case of the management that the First Respondent had remained absent from duty from 7th March 2008 and a memo was issued to him on 8th March 2008. The First Respondent had, by his letter dated 10th March 2008, sought leave for two days on 11th and 12th March 2008. The case of the First Respondent, in his letter dated 14th March 2008, was that though he was reporting for duty, the management had prevented him from signing the Muster Roll. 2. The First Respondent moved the School Tribunal on the ground that the refusal of the management to allow him to sign the Muster Roll, amounted to termination. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and reinstated him with back wages of 30%. The First Respondent was admittedly a permanent employee and was in the service from 15th June 1992. 3 3. The Tribunal was justified in holding that if the management had any complaint against the First Respondent in respect of the commission of an act of misconduct, it was open to it to hold a disciplinary enquiry. The services of a permanent employee could not have been dispensed with by refusing him permission to sign the Muster Roll. Though the management had submitted that they had called upon the First Respondent to join duty, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the signature of the First Respondent in token of having received the letters was not taken and there was nothing on the record to show that these letters were, in fact, served on the First Respondent. Be that as it may, it is abundantly clear from the material placed on the record that at the material time the First Respondent had complained that the management was preventing him from reporting for duty and signing the Muster Roll. The Tribunal was on the basis of the evidence on record, justified in holding that the employee with a long service of fifteen years was arbitrarily dealt with and removed unlawfully. The Tribunal has restricted the grant of back wages to only 30%. The 4 order for the grant of back wages does not, in the circumstances, warrant interference in the exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly, having regard that the conduct of the management was patently illegal and arbitrary. There is no merit in the petition which will accordingly stand dismissed. .....