1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4926/2009. ( Secretary, Sarwangin Shikshan Sanstha and another -: versus :- Mukund N. Dorle and another ) WRIT PETITION NO. 5390/2009. ( Shri Mukunda N. Dorle .vrs. Sarwangin Shikshan Sanstha and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 11, 2009. Heard finally by consent of Shri C.S. Kaptan, learned counsel for Management and Shri P.N. Shende, learned counsel for Employee. Learned A.G.P. has appeared for Respondent - Education Officer. The challenge is to judgment dated 24.07.2009 delivered by the School Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal No. STC- 21/2009. Employee Shri Dorle, has filed Writ Petition No. 5390/2009, stating that at the time of his termination he was working as Clerk and the School Tribunal ought to have reinstated him as Clerk. Thus, grant of reinstatement on the post of Peon is being challenged in it. Management / employer has filed Writ Petition No. 4926/2009 stating that the management produced 2 musters only to show that the employee was in service from 25.05.1997. According to Shri C.S.Kaptan, learned counsel, as the employee had no where specifically stated in his appeal memo before the School Tribunal, that he was in employment as Peon from 1989 till 1998, that was not the aspect to be looked into by the School Tribunal. But, then because of those musters, the School Tribunal has found that the employee was earlier working as Peon from 1989 to 1997. He has attempted to show from musters to this Court that the signatures of employee are appearing at the end in each month i.e. even after the employee who have been subsequently recruited. He further states that at pages where the Education Officer has put his signature after inspection, as such signatures could not be put, the employee has not signed it in the entire month. According to him, the musters were fabricated by putting signatures lateron. He also invites attention to the fact that, before the School Tribunal the certificate issued by the Sugar Factory showing that the employee was working with it from 11.11.1991 to 10.03.1997 was produced, but that has not been appropriately evaluated. After hearing both the sides, I find that though there is no specific assertion in the appeal memo about the earlier services of about 8 years, i.e. from 1989 to 1997 as peon, in the written statement with reference to the complaint dated 5.1.1999 lodged by the employee, management has denied his working as Peon during said period. That complaint dated 05.01.1999 is not before this Court. Similarly, in very same paragraph Management has further relied upon certificate issued by the Sugar Factory, 3 showing that from 11.11.1991 till 10.03.1997 the employee was working with it on daily wages @ Rs.31.50 per day. The position sought to be shown to this Court about placement of signature of employee on musters for relevant period needs to be appreciated in the background of these facts. I find that such consideration is conspicuously lacking in the impugned judgment of the School Tribunal. Similarly, when the School Tribunal has found that the employee has worked for 8 years as Peon and thereafter promoted as Clerk and at the time of his termination he was Clerk, relief of reinstatement on the post of Clerk ought to have been granted. Grant of such reinstatement is therefore, unsustainable. Thus, I find that the employee as also the Management has raised some valid ground to assail the judgment. It is apparent that unless and until the facts are considered appropriately by the School Tribunal, after giving due opportunity to the parties, nothing can be said finally at this stage. The earlier service of employee from 1989 to 1997 and his promotion thereafter is the most crucial aspect which has got important bearing on the entire adjudication. The certificate issued by the Sugar Factory, if it is true and correct negates the case of employee. In view of this position, the impugned judgment of School Tribunal dated 24.07.2009 is quashed and set aside and proceedings in Appeal No. STC 21/1999 are restored back to the file of the School Tribunal for taking fresh decision in accordance with law. As the matter is old, the School Tribunal to endeavor to decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 31.03.2010. Parties to appear 4 before the School Tribunal on 28.12.2009 and shall abide by its further instructions in the matter. Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly, however, with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.