1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 601 OF 2010 Shri Ravindra Shivaji Waghmare ... Petitioner v/s The Secretary, Padmashree Annasaheb Jadhav Bharatiya Samaj Unnati Mandal & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Surel S. Shah for the petitioner. Mr.M.S.Lagu for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Bubna for respondent No.5. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 25TH JUNE, 2010 P.C.: 1. Mr.Shah seeks liberty to delete respondent Nos.3 and 4. Liberty granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent the matter has been taken up for final hearing. 3. The petition has been preferred against the judgment 2 and order of the School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai, dated 23.9.2008. By this order, the School Tribunal has held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The Tribunal has observed that the services of the petitioner were terminated correctly by respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. In my opinion, once the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction, it ought not to have made any observations with respect to the merits of the matter. Instead, the Tribunal ought to have merely dismissed the appeal if according to it the School Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide matters pertaining to Shikshan Sevaks. 5. After the order of the School Tribunal, the petitioner approached the One Member Grievance Committee and by an order dated 19.6.2009 the appeal was dismissed in view of the judgment and order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8313 of 2008, dated 19.12.2008 in the case of Principal, Our Lady of Salvation High School v/s Ms.Rashmi Upadhyay & ors. The One Member Grievance Committee dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh appeal before the School Tribunal or any other forum. It appears that, instead of filing the fresh appeal, the petitioner filed a review application for review of the earlier order 3 passed by the School Tribunal. This review application has been dismissed by the School Tribunal by concluding that a review was not maintainable. 6. The order dated 9.12.2009 passed on the review application cannot be held to be perverse as a review is not maintainable under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act. It is now well settled that unless there is a provision empowering the Tribunal, which is a creature of the statute being M.E.P.S. Act, to review its own order, a review application would not be maintainable. 7. However, it is obvious that the School Tribunal while passing the earlier order dated 23.9.2008 has erred in making observations on merits of the matter when it was of the view that it had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal. Therefore, all the observations made by the Tribunal with respect to the merits of the appeal cannot be accepted. The order of the Tribunal was passed obviously because of the Government Resolution which stipulates that any grievance of the Shikshan Sevaks could be redressed before the One Member Grievance Committee. However, in view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, which has been delivered after the amendment to the provisions of M.E.P.S Act, the 4 School Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the grievances of Shikshan Sevaks as well, which fall within the purview of Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.9.2008 is set aside. 9. Mr.Bubna appearing for respondent No.5 submits that no allegations or averments have been made against respondent No.5 and, therefore, his name should be deleted. This aspect will be considered by the School Tribunal in case such a contention is raised by respondent No.5 before it. 10. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. 11. Parties will appear before the School Tribunal on 19.7.2010. 12. The School Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within one year from today. The appeal shall be decided on merits. All contentions of all the parties are kept open. ..... 5