1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 201 of 2010 Prabhu Sadashiv Deshmukh V/s. Shri. Somaji Khandate & two others ......................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ......................................................................................................................................... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 30th NOVEMBER, 2011. Heard Shri. P. N. Shende, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri. Shashikant Borkar, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mrs. Bharati Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent No. 3. 2. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are present personally in this Court in view of order passed by this Court dated 24/11/2011. 3. The contempt alleged in this petition is of wilful disobedience or breach of the Judgment and Order 2 dated 09/11/2009 passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur. The operative part of the same is relevant and is reproduced below. Order 1. Appeal is allowed under Section 11(2) of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977. 2. The oral otherwise termination of June 21, 2000 terminating the services of the appellant is quashed and set aside fully. 3. The appellant shall be reinstated along with 50% of back wages and continuity in service. 4. Parties to bear their own cost. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been reinstated in service pending the decision of this contempt petition and he is working on the post. It is also not in dispute that the Education Officer has granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner by his order dated 06/04/2011 with effect from 11/10/1993 with a condition that the Education Department shall not be responsible for making payment of back wages in terms of the order 3 passed by School Tribunal. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has filed proceedings under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 for imposing penalty upon the management for failure in complying with the order of School Tribunal. 5. The order of School Tribunal does not specify as to who should pay the back wages; whether Management or Education Officer or it is joint and several. In view of the Judgment delivered by this Court in the cases of Vilas Shankarrao Deshmukh vs. S. A. Ghode, Principal Navprabhat Vidya Mandir and Junior College, Thanegaon and other s reported in 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 261 and Mohammed Salam Anamul Haque vs. S. A. Azmi and others reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 249, the orders passed by the School Tribunal can be executed as if it is a decree of the Civil Court, hence, this question can be gone into by the School Tribunal in proceedings under Section 13 or in the proceedings in the execution of the order of the School Tribunal. Hence, the contempt petition is dismissed. JUDGE Punde