:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6371 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 6371 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 6371 OF 2008 Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through its Secretary & Anr. ..Petitioners versus Pundlik Tukaram Gaikwad & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. R. S. Apte i/b. Mr. N. R. Bubna for the Petitioners. Mr. S. D. Patil for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 16TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 16TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 16TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioners - management has questioned the Order of the School Tribunal granting backwages to the respondent No. 1 from 13.6.2003 (date of reinstatement) to 12.4.2006 (date of resumption of duty). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners is correct in the submission that the Order of the :2: Tribunal suffers from a contradiction in that though there is a finding that there is no direct evidence to show any effort made by the respondent No. 1 to join duties after the order of reinstatement dated 16.10.2003, yet, the Tribunal has proceeded to grant backwages to such a person. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 however strongly submits that in fact the respondent No. 1 was prevented from joining duty and therefore he had to resort to apply for a Court Commissioner in whose presence he was allowed to join duties. Though there is a reference to the Court Commissioner in the Order of the Tribunal, it is not clear at whose instance the Court Commissioner was appointed. Indeed, the Court Commissioner was appointed at the instance of the petitioners on the ground that the respondent No. 1 had failed to join duty. It would mean that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the respondent No. 1 made no attempt to join his duties. In that case however there can be no justification for granting backwages for the period from 16.10.2003 till 12.4.2006 when the respondent No.1 joined duties. In any case, as the Order of the Tribunal stands, there is no justification for directing payment of backwages for :3: the period from 16.10.2003 to 12.4.2006. This order is contradictory to the finding that the respondent No.1 made no attempt to join his duty and the Order is set aside to that extent. Thus, as of now the petitioners shall be liable to pay backwages only from 13.6.2003 to 16.10.2003. However, having regard to contention of Mr. Patil, it is necessary to remand the matter to the Tribunal for a categoric determination of (i) whether the respondent No.1 failed on his own accord to join duties after he was directed to be reinstated on 16.10.2003 or (ii) whether the petitioners prevented him from joining the duties, which eventually the respondent No. 1 did on 12.4.2006 in the presence of the Court Commissioner. Rule made absolute in the above terms. The respondent No.1 shall be entitled to withdraw backwages for the aforesaid period i.e. from 13.6.2003 to 16.10.2003. Rest of the amount shall be continued to remain deposited in the Tribunal and shall be disbursed in accordance with the final decision of the Tribunal. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.2.2009. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)