1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2905 OF 2008 The Secretary, Poona Jesut Schools Society, Poona and Ors. ..... Petitioners V/s. Ms.Julie Devid Paul (Deceased) through L.R. Ms.Amel Devid Paul ..... Respondents Mr.A.B.Borkar, Advocate, for the Petitioners. Mr.Indrajeet Joshi, Advocate, for the Respondent. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATED : JULY 18, 2008. P.C. 1. Rule. 2. The learned Advocate Mr.Indrajeet Joshi waives service of rule for the respondent. With the consent of the Advocates, the matter is taken up today for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. By filing this petition, the petitioner-management has challenged the order passed by the School Tribunal, Kolhapur, dated 08-01-2008 in Appeal No.193 of 1997. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the deceased employee who died during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the action of the Inquiry 2 Committee in terminating services of the concerned employee dated 28- 10-1997 is illegal and void. Since the original applicant before the Tribunal died during the pendency of the appeal, it was directed that entire back wages should be paid to the heirs of the original-appellant for the period between 01-10-1996 till her death. 3. The original appellant-employee was serving in the petitioner's school as a teacher. She had served continuously between 1963 to 1996. It is the case of the original appellant before the Tribunal that no complaints were received against her regarding her work, but in view of her ill-health, she went on medical leave since November 1996 and that the application was given to the management in this behalf with medical certificates issued by the Civil Surgeon, Kolhapur. It is the case of the original applicant before the Tribunal that she was continuously ill from 30-11-1997 and application was also given to the school authority in this behalf with relevant medical certificates. The Management however, initiated departmental proceedings against the said teacher. The inquiry was continued at the time when the applicant was sick and the concerned applicant could not take part in the departmental proceedings before the Tribunal. Ultimately, the departmental proceedings resulted into the termination order of the applicant teacher. 4. The said order was challenged before the School Tribunal by the 3 original applicant teacher. But ultimately, during the pendency of the proceedings she died and therefore, her legal heir was brought on record. After considering the evidence of the case, the Tribunal found that since the original applicant is dead, the question of reinstatement has became infructous. The Tribunal held that the inquiry was not held in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Though, the Tribunal has not given detailed reasons, the learned Advocate for the respondent, pointed out that the inquiry proceedings were conducted ex-parte and reasonable opportunity was not given to the appellant-teacher. It is submitted by him that the inquiry should have been adjourned as she was sick at the relevant time. It is submitted that under the circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is not required to be interfered with, in view of the fact that the inquiry proceedings were held in violation of principles of natural justice and the original applicant was not given opportunity to defend her case in the departmental proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that since detailed reasons have not been given by the Tribunal, the matter may be sent back to the Tribunal. In my view, considering the fact that the original-appellant has already died and the question which is required to decide as to whether the original inquiry held against the deceased employee was in a fair and just manner, it is not necessary to 4 remand the matter back, as the said aspect can be decided on the basis of material available on record. It is not in dispute that the concerned employee was not keeping good health and she was all throughout sick at the time when inquiry was going on against her. 6. The fact that she was not keeping good health is fortified by the fact that she died during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal. The employee had also submitted medical certificates to the management from time to time. 7. In view of the aforesaid factual aspects, the inquiry proceedings should have been adjourned, as she was not in a position to attend the same because of her ill-health. Considering the said aspect, the Tribunal is justified in passing the impugned order. Considering the facts & circumstances of the matter, this is not a case in which this Court would like to interfere with the said order of the Tribunal in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The present respondent being elder sister of the original-appellant was brought on record as the only heir of deceased employee and it is pointed to the Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that she was not married and she was fully dependent upon the deceased appellant. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, submitted that in absence of satisfactory evidence that the deceased was gainfully 5 employed, the Tribunal should not have awarded full back wages. In this behalf, it is required to be noted that the deceased was all through-out sick and ultimately she died. Considering the said fact, there was no question on her part to prove that she was not gainfully employed elsewhere. It is not even the case of the management before the Tribunal that at any point of time, she was gainfully employed during the intervening period. 9. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and considering the fact that the original appellant was sick all through-out, the Tribunal has rightly passed an order of back wages for the intervening period, in view of the fact that she died and there was no question of passing any order of reinstatement. I accordingly do not find any substance in the petition and same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Ad-interim stay granted by this Court stands vacated. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )