1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION LOD.NO.1373 OF 2008 Laxmi Charitable Trust .. Petitioner Versus Anuradha Parab & Ors. .. Respondents AND Laxmi Charitable Trust & Anr. .. Petitioners Versus M.A.Gawade & Ors. .. Respondents AND Laxmi Charitable Trust & Anr. .. Petitioners Versus Santosh B. Varak and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Kiran Bapat i/b.Rahul Nerlekar for petitioners Mr.Phadnis with Mr.Rui Rodrigues Mr.Sadasivan for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 Mr.G.W.Mattos, AGP for respondent Nos. 7 to 9 Mr.A.N.Kotangale with Mr.Nagarjuna for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.Lod.No.1374/08 Mr.Sadasivan for respondent Nos.3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15to 18, 22, 25, 27 to 33, 36 and 38. Ms.Geeta Shastri, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2 and 4 in W.P.Lod.No.1414 of 2008 Mr.A.N.Kotangale with Mr.A.D.Nagarjuna for respodnent No.1 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 2 DATE : 10th June 2008 P.C. . The Management, Laxmi Charitable Trust and Another has challenged the order of the University and College Tribunal in Appeals which were preferred by several appellants. By a common order rendered in the batch of appeals, the learned Presiding Officer has held that the orders of termination of the appellants/concerned non teaching employees are bad in law and required to be set aside. The petitioner Management was directed to reinstate them and show their names on the muster roll, continue them in service and pay their wages from the date of termination till such time as their services are absorbed in some other colleges. 2. The issue before the Tribunal, therefore, was as to whether the employees have been 3 rendered surplus as stated by the Management in their communication addressed to the employees or that this is a case of termination under the garb of the employee being allegedly rendered surplus. It was not disputed before the Tribunal that ultimately whether the employees are rendered surplus or not is an issue which must be decided by the Directorate of Education and in the instant case the Joint Director of Higher Education, Mumbai Region. Thus, the Management accepts the position in law that until the competent Authority determined and decided this issue, it could not have terminated the services of the original appellants. He was already before Tribunal but unfortunately the Tribunal could not issue any directions to him in the absence of any assistance rendered to it. 3. When these matters are placed before me, Mr.Bapat for petitioner management assailed the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the 4 Tribunal was aware of an application being made by the Management to the Joint Director requesting his intervention in the matter of the employees being rendered surplus and the said issue be resolved by him. However, the management was informed earlier that the employees (16 in number) were rendered surplus and not 14 as stated by the Management. This was the communication of 20th June 2007. However, by a subsequent communication of 20th September 2007, the Joint Director informed the Management that the earlier communications were being misinterpreted and rather were issued under some misconception. The Joint Director is yet to decide the issue as to whether the subject employees are surplus or not. 4. When these state of affairs were pointed out to me by Mr.Bapat so also by Mr.Kotangale, I had directed the learned A.G.P. orally to seek instructions from the Joint Director. 5 Accordingly, the Joint Director of Higher Education Mr.M.S.Andhale is present in Court and he has instructed learned A.G.P. to make a statement that the application of the Management with regard to the above issue shall be decided by the Joint Director, after hearing the Management as well as the concerned employees, within a period of four months from today. The Joint Director has further instructed the learned A.G.P. to state that the time schedule would be adhered to and in no case extension would be sought for the purpose of determining the above issue. 5. Upon this statement, both the management and the concerned non teaching staff/employees agree to appear before the Joint Director on the date and time fixed by him and make their submissions so also produce documents in support of their pleas. Needless therefore to state that the issue will be decided by the Joint Director 6 and until the decision by him is rendered, the management shall continue to abide by the orders and directions of the Tribunal, subject of course, to its rights to challenge any adverse order of Joint Director. All contentions, of the Management as raised before me and denied by the employees, are kept open for being raised before the Joint Director. 6. Needless to further state that the Joint Director has assured the Court that if he concludes that the employees are indeed rendered surplus, then, such of the employees who are rendered surplus shall be given all benefits which are provided in law, including, their absorption in other institutions. 7. Another request made by the learned A.G.P. is that the Management should render assistance to the Joint Director/his representative/ nominee and the authorised 7 officer of the University so also allow them to inspect all records and documents at the premises of the Management. Mr.Bapat, after taking instructions, makes a statement that the Management will render all assistance and produce relevant records for scrutiny and inspection of the Joint Director, for determination of the above issue. It is agreed between the management and the Joint Director so also the University that the inspection of the documents and records would be taken at the Management office on 24th June 2008 at 11.00 a.m. 8. Mr.Bapat states that as far as pending wage/salary bills are concerned, they will be forwarded within two weeks from today. The Joint Director so also the University to take necessary steps in accordance with the prevalent Rules so that all concerned abide by the orders of the Tribunal insofar as payment of salaries until decision on the above issue. The Joint Director 8 states that within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of wage/salary bills, the necessary steps would be taken. All petitions are disposed of in the above terms. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)