: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4876 OF 2008 The Chairman / Hon. Secretary, S. Veer Savarkar Hindu Education Trust, Mumbai & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. Hema P. Bele & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. D.S. Sawant i/b. Mr. D.S. Jadhav for the Petitioners. Mr. Nasir Shaikh for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP, for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 21 ST JUNE, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Writ Petition has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 30th April, 2008 passed by the School Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No.MUM/68/2002. 2. The petitioners contend that the respondent No. 1-employee was appointed on probation and since it was found that her work was not satisfactory, her services were terminated. An alternate plea was : 2 : raised by the petitioners contending that the respondent No.1-employee had resigned from the services. 3. The School Tribunal has held that it was not possible to accept the contention of the petitioners that the respondent No.1-employee had resigned as the petitioners had not produced any material on record to prove the resignation. As regards the termination of services, as alleged by the respondent No.1-employee, the School Tribunal has found that her services were in fact terminated by the petitioners. The respondent No.1 was appointed on probation. The petitioners contention was that her record was not good. However they had not produced any document on record to establish that fact. None of the memos allegedly issued to respondent No.1 were produced by the petitioners before the Tribunal. 4. Apart from this, the School Tribunal observed that the termination of service was not in accordance with Section 5(3) of the Maharashtra : 3 : Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 (for short “the MEPS Act”) since the respondent No.1-employee has not been given notice, as required, nor has she been paid any wages or honorarium, as required under Section 5(3) of the MEPS Act, prior to terminating her services. 5. The reliance placed by Mr. Sawant, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Zakir Hussain, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 447 does not carry the petitioners case any further. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court was in respect of the termination of services where the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act were attracted. The present case falls under the MEPS Act which has a specific provision of how to terminate the services of probationers. 4. In my view, since the termination has not been carried out as required under Section 5(3) of the : 4 : MEPS Act, the School Tribunal cannot be faulted for granting relief to the respondent No.1-employee. 5. The Writ Petition is dismissed.