: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1727 OF 2010 Bhartiya Kala Prasarni Sabha & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. Umesh Kashinath Awate & Anr. .. Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9438 OF 2009 Umesh Kashinath Awate .. Petitioner V/s. Bhartiya Kala Prasarni Sabha & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. S.V. Pitre i/b. Manoj Wadekar & Associates for the Petitioners in WP No.1727 of 2010 and for the Respondents in WP No.9438 of 2009. Mr. U.P. Warunjikar for Respondent No.1 in WP No.1727 of 2010 and for the Petitioner in WP No.9438 of 2009. Mr. P.I. Khemani, AGP, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 9 TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: 1. Both these Writ Petitions challenge the Judgment and Order dated 16th September, 2009, passed by the School Tribunal, Pune, in Appeal No. 15 of 2009. : 2 : 2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1727 of 2010 will be referred to as “the Management of the School” and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.9438 of 2009 will be referred to as “the Teacher”. 3. The School Tribunal has declared that the action of the Management of the School in not permitting the Teacher to resume his duties on 9th February, 2009 on the ground that he has not submitted a Joining Report is illegal. The Management of the School has been directed to reinstate the Teacher and to permit him to sign the muster roll. The Management of the School has also been granted continuity in service and back wages along with the other emoluments from 9th February, 2009, till his reinstatement in service. The Teacher has been awarded Rs.1,000/- towards cost of proceedings. 4. The dispute between the Management of the School and the Teacher initially arose in the year 2008 when an Appeal was filed by the Teacher : 3 : challenging the order of termination passed against him. That Appeal was disposed of in view of the compromise arrived at between the Management of the School and the Teacher. A joint pursis was filed before the School Tribunal which indicated that the parties had agreed that the Teacher would resume duties from 9th February, 2009. The cause of action had therefore come to an end, according to the parties, and the Appeal was disposed of accordingly. This order was passed on 6th February, 2009. It appears that on 9th February, 2009, the Management of the School did not permit the Teacher to resume duties as he refused to submit a Joining Report. Correspondence was exchanged between them and ultimately an Appeal was filed by the Teacher, being Appeal No.15 of 2009, before the School Tribunal contending that his services had been “otherwise terminated” by the Management of the School on 9th February, 2009. The School Tribunal has accepted the version of the Teacher and has passed the aforesaid order. : 4 : 5. Mr. Pitre, the learned Advocate appearing for the Management of the School, the Secretary of which is present in Court, states that the Management of the School has already reinstated the Teacher and he is permitted to sign the muster roll. Mr. Warunjikar, the learned Advocate appearing for the Teacher, who is also present in Court, states that although the Teacher has been reinstated, he was not allotted any work immediately. However, for the last 8 days he has been allotted some work, albeit, not the work of a Teacher, according to the learned Advocate. 6. The issue which now remains is whether back wages are payable in accordance with the amount awarded by the School Tribunal. According to the Management of the School, the Teacher is not entitled to back wages at all as it was he who did not report for duty on 9th February, 2009. On the other hand, the Teacher in his Writ Petition has contended that the School Tribunal has erred in awarding the back wages only from 9th February, 2009, although in his Appeal he had asked for back : 5 : wages from a prior period i.e. from 20th August, 2008. 7. In my opinion, the Teacher’s case that he should be granted back wages from 20th August, 2008 cannot be accepted since he had challenged the termination of services effected on that date by filing Appeal No.24 of 2008 before the School Tribunal. That Appeal was compromised and a joint pursis was filed on 6th February, 2009. No other relief was sought by the Teacher in that Appeal and in fact parties had agreed that the cause of action has come to an end. Therefore, he is not entitled to reopen his claim for wages from 20th August, 2008. However, as regards the amount awarded by the School Tribunal from 9th February, 2009, in my view, the School Tribunal has rightly awarded that amount. There is no need to interfere with the order of the School Tribunal directing the Management of the School to pay back wages from 9th February, 2009 till the Teacher’s reinstatement in service. : 6 : 8. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. 9. The Teacher who has been reinstated will be afforded all the rights and responsibilities as a Teacher. The Teacher will scrupulously observe and comply with the duties cast upon him as a Teacher. The Management of the School shall pay the back wages and the costs, as awarded by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.15 of 2009, to the respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks from today. 10. Mr. Pitre states that the Teacher has filed Darkhast proceedings before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, which should be withdrawn. Mr. Warunjikar on the other hand rightly points out that the Darkhast proceedings will be withdrawn once the amount, as awarded by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.15 of 2009, is paid to the Teacher. 11. The Darkhast proceedings shall not be taken up for hearing for a period of four weeks from today. Once the amount, as awarded by the School Tribunal : 7 : in Appeal No.15 of 2009, is paid to the Teacher, he shall withdraw the Darkhast proceedings immediately from the executing Court. In case the amount is not paid within the stipulated time, the teacher will be at liberty to prosecute the Darkhast proceedings.