ssp 1 LPA 155 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.155 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6414 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.237 OF 2011 Vasana Panchakroshi Shikshan Sanstha, Ambawade, Tal. Koregaon, Satara. .....Appellant versus Khamkar Popatrao Narayan and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Manday V. Limaye, for the appellant. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 13 th JULY, 2011 P.C. 1. The above appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.6414 of 1997. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-Management and confirmed the order passed by the School Tribunal. The respondent-teacher approached the School Tribunal against the order of terminating his service by way of Appeal No.113 of 1989. The School Tribunal as back as on 05-03-1992 set aside the termination order passed by the management on 13-10-1989 and it is held that the concerned teacher i.e. respondent No.1 is declared to be in continuous ssp 2 LPA 155 of 2011 service and consequential benefits including full back wages. The said order was challenged by the management by way of Writ Petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and confirmed the order of the School Tribunal. 2. Subsequently, since the management was not obeying and complying with the order of the School Tribunal, the respondent No.1 came before this Court by way of Contempt Petition No.25 of 1996. The learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated March 26, 1996, directed that the concerned teacher may attend the School on 02-04-1996 at 11.00 a.m. and in order to ensure that the respondent No.1 has attended the School, the officer of the Education Department was also directed to remain present in the School. The aforesaid directions were given in view of the disputed questions of fact to the effect that whether the concerned teacher was prevented by the management from joining the duties and whether he was not joined the duties. The said Contempt Petition was disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the concerned teacher after resuming his duties, again preferred a Contempt Application No.14 of 1997 before the School Tribunal, Kolhapur, in so far as the Management has not paid all consequential benefits of back wages, though it was directed in the earlier proceedings. The School Tribunal ssp 3 LPA 155 of 2011 has passed an order on 13-10-1997, by which the management was directed to pay salary for the intervening period within a period of one month from the date of the order. The said order was challenged before the learned Single Judge of this Court by way of Writ Petition No.6414 of 1997 and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, against which the above appeal is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that in a Contempt Application which was preferred before the School Tribunal under Section 13 of M.E.P.S. Act, which is regarding non- complying with the Tribunal’s order, the Tribunal could have convicted the Management for not complying with the order and it was not required to pass order of back wages which is passed by the Tribunal and which is impugned before the learned Single Judge. In our view, there is absolutely no substance in the said argument. It is required to be noted that it is not in dispute that the concerned teacher was reinstated in service with full back wages and that order attained finality as the order of the School Tribunal was confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Since the management has not complied with the said order of the School Tribunal, the School Tribunal instead of sending the concerned person in jail, took a liberal view in the matter and directed the management to pay unpaid salary to the teacher within the stipulated period. It is not in ssp 4 LPA 155 of 2011 dispute that concerned teacher was entitled to full back wages, as that order attained finality. Simply because the Tribunal has not sent the concerned person to jail, is no ground for coming to the conclusion that the management was not required to comply with the order of the School Tribunal. In our view, the Tribunal has rightly passed an order under Section 13 of the Act, in asking the management to comply with the order regarding payment of full back wages, which question was already adjudicated earlier and had attained finality. If the management still fails to comply with the order, then the course suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant, as a last resort, can be taken against the management. In our view, the management has acted in a high handed manner by flouting the order of the School Tribunal for years together. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order of the learned Single Judge is not required to be interfered with. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the concerned teacher has already retired since long by way of superannuation. According to him, management is required to pay a sum of `90,000/- approximately to the concerned teacher. A feeble attempt is made by the learned counsel for the appellant by submitting that the State Government may be directed to reimburse the said amount by way of grant to the management, as it is an aided School. In our view, when ssp 5 LPA 155 of 2011 the management has acted in a high handed manner, no financial liability can be fastened on the State Government. Therefore, the State Government is not required to reimburse the said amount to the management. 6. In view of what is stated above, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount in question is already deposited before this Court and the concerned teacher has already withdrawn the same. Statement is accepted. 8. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, civil application No. 237 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )