1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6172 OF 2007 Suresh Shamrao Chavan. ...Petitioner. Vs. President/Secretary, Maharani Shantadevi Gaikwad Griha Shastra Shikshan Sanstha, Kolhapur & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. P.D. Dalvi for the Petitioner. Mr. A. M. Joshi for Respondent No.1. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. October 10, 2008. P.C. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the First Respondent waives service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The challenge, in these proceedings, is to an order passed by the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal at Kolhapur declining to condone the delay in presenting an appeal under Section 9 of the 2 Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed as a peon in a school conducted by the First and Second Respondents at Kolhapur on 2nd July 2001. Initially, a person by the name of Ramesh Koli, who was a peon, was promoted as Laboratory Assistant and in his vacant post, the Petitioner was appointed. A person by the name of Atigre filed an appeal before the Tribunal, challenging the appointment of Koli as a Lab Assistant and the proceedings were pending before the Tribunal. The proposal sent by the management for the grant of approval to the appointment of the Petitioner was refused by the Education Officer. According to the Petitioner, he was assured that a fresh proposal would be submitted after the appeal was disposed of by the School Tribunal and in the meantime, he was directed to continue to work without signing the muster register. The Petitioner was not paid his wages allegedly from 2nd July 2001. According to the Petitioner, he worked as a peon until 31st December 2003 though he was not allowed to sign the muster, nor was he paid his salary. On 10th January 2005, the Fourth respondent was appointed to the post of a peon. The Petitioner 3 moved the School Tribunal treating this as an oral termination of his services. The Petitioner sought the condonation of the delay that had occurred in filing the appeal. 3. The application for condonation of delay was resisted by the management. The School Tribunal noted that the submission of the management was that the appointment of the Petitioner was subject to the approval of the Education Officer and there was a ban on recruitment of non-teaching staff from the open category. According to the management, the services of the Petitioner came to an end automatically when the Education Officer declined to grant approval. The case of the management was that the Petitioner was not in service at all from 2nd July 2001 to 31st December 2003 and that there was no reason to condone the delay. 4. The School Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation holding that there was no explanation, much less a satisfactory explanation to show that the Petitioner had made out sufficient cause for condonation of the delay of one year and twenty seven days. The contention of the Petitioner is that there is no 4 discussion on the merits of the reasons which were adduced in the application for condonation at all. This submission would have to be accepted. The Petitioner had advanced certain grounds for condonation of delay. Whether the grounds were sufficient or otherwise was a matter for the Tribunal to decide. The Tribunal has not evaluated the sufficiency of the cause shown by the Petitioner with reference to the grounds in support of the application at all. Save and except for observing that there was no explanation and much less a satisfactory explanation, the Tribunal has not referred to the merits of the explanation advanced by the Petitioner. Counsel appearing on behalf of the management sought to urge that the reasons which were advanced by the Petitioner would not be adequate because there was nothing to indicate that the Petitioner had, in fact, been in service after 2nd July 2001. This is a matter which would have to be considered by the Tribunal in the first place. The case of the Petitioner is that he was continued in service until 10th January 2004 though he was required not to sign the muster roll and not paid his wages. On the other hand, according to the 5 management, the Petitioner was not in service at all after 2nd July 2001. It would not be appropriate for this Court to comment upon the merits of the rival cases, particularly at this stage. The Tribunal should have evaluated the case made out by the Petitioner for condonation of delay which has not been done. In these circumstances, while clarifying that this Court has not decided upon he merits of the grounds advanced by the Petitioner for the condonation of delay, it would be necessary and appropriate to direct the Tribunal to do so in the first instance. In order to facilitate this exercise, the impugned order dated 26th July 2007 is set aside. The application for condonation being Application in Misc. Appeal No.2 of 2005 shall stand restored to the file of the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal at Kolhapur. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 10th November 2008 for receiving directions. The Tribunal shall pass a fresh order on the application for condonation of delay after hearing the parties. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ..... 6