1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7211 OF 2002 Jayaprakash Pathak .. Petitioner. Vs. B. D. Maurya and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. N.M. Ganguli i/b Ditendra Kumar J. P. Mishra for the Petitioner. Mr. A.P. Vanarase, AGP for Respondent No.3. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 15th December, 2008. P.C. : 1. The Petitioner had instituted an appeal before the School Tribunal aggrieved by the termination of his services as an Assistant Teacher by an oral order dated 26th June, 1997. The appeal which is preferred under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 came to be dismissed by the School Tribunal on 20th July, 2002. The challenge in these proceedings is to the order of the School Tribunal. 2. The School Tribunal has held that the Petitioner was 2 appointed in a leave vacancy on 11th June, 1996 and that the letter of appointment shows that the Petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis from 13th June, 1996 to 30th April, 1997. The Tribunal held that the Education Department had also approved the appointment of the Petitioner for the academic year 1996-97 in place of an Assistant Teacher by the name of Smt Rita Singh. The Tribunal observed that the Respondents had filed photocopies of the attendance register and the salary register which showed that the Petitioner had worked from 18th June, 1996 to 30th April, 1997. The office noting shows that the Respondents have been served. In ground (x) of the Petition it has been averred that the Respondents had not produced any documents together with the written statement and that one set of documents was filed on 24th January, 2002 together with the written arguments; this being after the arguments of the Petitioner were over. The relevant averments in ground (x) read as follows : “(x) The School Tribunal lost site of the fact that the Respondents did not produce any document till the Petitioner filed his Written arguments. The Respondents filed one set of documents alongwith its written arguments filed on 24-01-2002. As such the Petitioner did not have opportunity to rebut these documents. In fact, the School Tribunal ought not to have allowed the Respondents to produce the documents when the arguments of the 3 Petitioner were over. The School Tribunal not only overlooked these facts but also shockingly held that the Petitioner did not deny his signature (alleged) on the documents. This approach of the School Tribunal was contrary to law. The School Tribunal ought not to have held that the Petitioner was not a temporary employee employed in the leave vacancy. The School Tribunal ought to have held that the Petitioner was a permanent employee employed since 04-01-1995.” 3. Since the First and Second Respondents representing the management have not entered appearance despite service of notice, this Court has proceeded on the basis that the aforesaid averment stands untraversed. The contention of the Petitioner is that there was no question of his being appointed on a leave vacancy since Smt Rita Singh was in fact working in some other school viz. Ghatkoper Hindi High School. According to the Petitioner there was a mismanagement of the institution and in support thereof he relied upon a letter dated 3rd May, 2000 addressed to the Senior P. I. of the Bhandup Police Station by the Education Inspector, North Zone, Mumbai. According to the Petitioner the letter besides referring to the mismanagement of the institution states that the names of several employees who were not working in the School were mentioned in the 4 attendance register. The case of the Petitioner is that as a matter of fact no appointment letter was ever issued to him. His contention is that he worked in the school from 4th January, 1995 till April 1995; during the academic year 1995-96 (when he was not allowed to sign on the regular muster roll) and thereafter between July 1996 to April 1997. According to the Petitioner for the year 1996-97 he was allowed to open a salary account in the Saraswat Bank, Powai Branch. It is his allegation that during 1994-95 he was paid a salary of Rs.450/- per month in cash and his signature was taken on a blank stamped voucher. According to the Petitioner, he was orally terminated on 26th June, 1997. The case of the management, in the written statement filed before the Tribunal is that the Petitioner was appointed on 11th June, 1996 and the letter of appointment was issued. According to the management the appointment of the Petitioner was in the leave vacancy of Smt. Rita Singh between 18th June, 1996 and 30th April, 1997 and that the aforesaid employee came to sign the muster with effect from 1st May, 1997. 4. The School Tribunal has placed a considerable degree of 5 reliance on the documents which were filed by the management. The contention of the Petitioner is that there was a breach of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as he had no opportunity to deal with those documents since a compilation containing a set of the documents was filed along with the written arguments of the management after the Petitioner had completed his submissions. Since the management has chosen to remain absent in these proceedings, the averment contained in ground (x) of the Petition has gone unchallenged. In these circumstances, it will only be appropriate and proper if the proceedings are remitted back to the Tribunal in order to furnish an opportunity to the Petitioner to deal with the documentary evidence that was placed on the record by the management. The impugned order of the School Tribunal dated 20th July, 2002 is set aside. The Appeal viz. Appeal MUM/142 of 1997 shall stand restored to the file of the School Tribunal. The Petitioner would be at liberty to file an additional reply and such documentary evidence that he may seek to rely upon in support of the appeal. Upon remand the School Tribunal is requested to expeditiously dispose of the proceedings and to endeavour to do so preferably by 6 30th April, 2009. Before concluding it is clarified that the Petition has been allowed only on the basis that there was a breach of the principles of natural justice by denial to the Petitioner of an opportunity to deal with the documentary evidence produced by the management. Consequently none of the observations contained in this order shall be regarded as any opinion conclusively on the merits of the contentions of the rival parties. The Petitioner shall appear before the School Tribunal on 5th January, 2009. The Petition shall stand accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. *****