1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.478 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3450 OF 1997. (SUDHAKAR SADASHIV INGOLE.Vs. GRAMIN SHIKSHAN SANSTHA & 2 ORS.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Shri A. Parchure, Advocate for Appellant. Mrs. U.A. Patil, Advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mrs. T.D. Khade, A.G.P.. for Respondent No.3. CORAM : A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 09, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. This appeal arises out of judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.3450 of 1997. 3. It was the petition by the management, aggrieved by the judgment of the School Tribunal, wherein the School Tribunal had awarded back wages along with reinstatement w.e.f. 19th January, 1991 from the date of termination till 2nd May, 1998. 4. Perusal of the judgment reveals that the ground urged before the learned Single Judge was that while termination order under challenge was dated 19.09.1991 the appeal was filed on 31.07.1997. According to 2 the management, it could not be saddled with the liability towards back wages for which period the management even did not know that the employee is challenging the order of termination. 5. The learned Single Judge found and has recorded in paragraph 8 of the judgment as follows : “8. It is now necessary to consider whether the Tribunal was justified in granting back wages to the respondent no.2 with effect from 19.09.1991 when the respondent no.2 filed the appeal on 31.07.1997. It is conspicuous to note that the School Tribunal has not recorded a single reason for granting the back wages from 19.09.1991 though the appeal was presented by the respondent no.2 on 31.07.1997. The petitioners cannot be faulted for the presentation of the appeal by the respondent no.2 on 31.07.1997 and penalised with the liability of paying the back wages from 19.09.1991. Since the respondent no.2 had belatedly approached the Tribunal after a lapse of nearly six years, the Tribunal was not justified in granting the back wages for that period only because the termination order was set aside. The submission made on behalf of the respondent no.2 that the order of back wages should necessarily follow after the order of termination is not accepted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the respondent no.2 approached the Tribunal on 31.07.1997, merely because he had earlier approached the Education Officer, the authority who did not have jurisdiction to consider the case of the respondent no.2. It cannot be said that the petitioners should be made liable to pay the back wages with effect from 19.9.1991. At the most, the Tribunal could have granted back wages from the date of filing of the appeal i.e. 31.07.1997. ....” 6. The finding that the judgment of the School Tribunal does not disclose reasons as to how the employee was entitled to back wages between 19.01.1997 to 31.07.1997, is not shown to be factually incorrect. 3 7. Moreover, even now, the present appellant does not have explanation as to why he did not challenge the termination promptly i.e. within thirty days, which is the period of limitation prescribed under Section 9, he would be entitled to the back wages. 8. In this situation, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is based on only possible view and no interference is warranted. 9. The appeal has no merit and hence, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE RR.