1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR C. A. No. 1940 of 2008 & 1942 of 2008 In Writ Petition Nos. 4436 & 5128 of 2008 Dnyanadip Bahu Uddeshiya Shaikshanis Va Samajik Sanstha & Others Vs. Ashok Tulsiram Sonare & Madhukar Vitthalrao Wasnik Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri V. A. Dhabe Adv. for petitioner. Shri Prashant Shende Adv. for respondents. CORAM: J. H. BHATIA J. Dated: 29 th January, 2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. With consent of the parties C. A. No. 1940 of 2008 in Writ Petition Nos. 4436 is also taken up on board. 2 2. Ashok Sonare claims to be the President of petitioner, Dnyandip Bahu Uddeshiya Shaikshanik Va Samajik Sanstha. The Writ Petition Nos. 4436 of 2008 and 5128 of 2008 were filed on behalf of the Management through Secretary, President and Head Mistress of Swami Vivekanand Vidyalaya Dawasa run by the said Management against the two employees namely Sahebrao Bhoyar and Madhukar Wasnik. Petitions were against the orders passed by the School Tribunal in favour of those two employees. In the said petitions C. A. No. 694 and 695 of 2008 were filed before this Court for recording compromise between the parties. Compromise petitions were signed by the petitioner No.1 Secretary of the Society and petitioner No. 3 Head Mistress of the School as well as by the respondent No.1 in each of the matter i.e. the employees. The compromise petitions were not signed by the President of the Society who was shown as petitioner No.2. Shri V. A. Dhabe learned counsel had signed as an Advocate for the petitioner. No reason was given why the President had not signed the compromise nor it was mentioned that Advocate for the petitioner was authorised to sign on behalf of the President of 3 the Society. Any how both the applications were accepted and the compromise was recorded as per those applications. As per order dated 30.01.2008 both the writ petitions came to be disposed of accordingly. 3. Now these two applications i.e. C. A. No. 1940 and 1942 of 2008 in the said writ petitions are filed by one Ashok Sonare who claims to be the President of the Society. Shri Dhabe learned counsel for the petitioners disputes that Ashok Sonare is President of the Society. According to him one Vishnu Pande has taken over as President after the election and Change Report has been accordingly submitted. At this stage it is made clear that it is not necessary to enter into the disputes as to who is the President. Material point is that according to applicant Ashok Sonare has pointed out that para 7 of the Civil Application No. 694 and 695 of 2008 could not have been the part of the compromise particularly because the terms of the said compromise seek to set aside the appointments of certain teaching and non teaching staff of the school, who were not even parties to the said petition. Therefore, the learned counsel for 4 the applicant vehemently contended that he has main objection about recording of para 7 of the said compromise. 4. Para 7 of the said compromise reads as follows: “That, the respondent No.1 agrees that the appointments made by the School Committee headed by the disputed President Shri Ashok Sonare shall be treated as illegal and unauthorised because the said School Committee itself was not constituted lawfully. Therefore all the appointment orders issued under the signature of this Respondent No.1 shall be treated as null and void and the employees, teaching and non teaching so appointed shall not be treated as employees of the school i.e. Swami Vivekanand Vidyalaya Dawsa, in any manner whatsoever. However in case of their termination or removal the respondent No.1 shall not be held responsible personally and the management formed by Shri Ashok Sonare shall be responsible for the consequences of the said termination or removal as the case may be.” 5. On perusal of this part of the said compromise it becomes clear that the compromise was not restricted to the claim of the petitioners vis-a-vis respondent No.1 but it went much further. It indicates that certain appointments of teaching 5 and non teaching staff were already made by the School Committee headed by Ashok Sonare. As per this compromise all the appointment orders issued under the signature of the respondent No.1 shall be treated as null and void and the employees, teaching and non teaching, so appointed shall not be treated as employees in any manner. Result of this compromise would be setting aside the appointment of the teaching and non teaching staff of the school behind the back of those persons who were so appointed. Such a compromise could not be recorded nor such an order could be passed. They could not be allowed to be thrown away from the service by the Management without giving an opportunity to them and without taking any action against them as per law. It appears that the Court recorded the said compromise under the belief that the compromise was properly drafted and it was restricted to the dispute in the petition. It appears that the parties who had signed the said compromise and their Advocate who had also signed the compromise application had mislead the Court in accepting the said compromise. If the terms of para 7 would have been 6 brought to the notice of the Court at that time that part of the compromise could not have been recorded by the Court. 6. In view of the circumstances para 7 in both the compromise applications shall be deemed to have been deleted and shall not be part of the compromise recorded by the Court. The present applications are allowed to that extent and the applications stand disposed of . JUDGE svk