1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4704 OF 2008 Smt.Jadhav Sujata Dhondiba. ...Petitioner. Vs. Bapdev Shikshan Sanstha & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mrs. A.A. Agarwal for the Petitioner. Mr.Mohan N. Dhamal for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. R.M. Pethe, AGP for Respondent No.3. Mr. M.P. Vashi for Respondent Nos.4 and 5. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. November 14, 2008. P.C. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The challenge in these proceedings is to an order passed by the School Tribunal at Pune on 23rd April 2008, rejecting the appeal filed by the Petitioner on the ground of limitation. The 2 Petitioner joined the services of the First Respondent as an Assistant Teacher on 1st June 2004 and was working as the Headmistress incharge for some period. The Petitioner handed over charge of the post of Headmistress on 6th March 2006 and started working as an Assistant Teacher. The case of the Petitioner is that she was on leave on medical grounds from 3rd April 2006 for a period of about three weeks. After the period of leave, the Petitioner claims to have reported to the School with a joining report. However, it is alleged that she was not allowed to sign the Muster as the Academic Year was for all practical purposes drawing to a close. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 24th April 2006, she met the President of the Management who in turn, informed her that the school was closed for the Summer Vacation until 11th June 2006. Upon the reopening of the School on 12th June 2006, the Petitioner, it is alleged, went back to the School when the Headmaster incharge informed her that he could not allow her to report unless he was instructed by the management. Thereafter, the Petitioner claims to have been called upon by the management to wait for two days. The Education Officer addressed a letter dated 13th June 2006 to the management following which the 3 President of the management informed the Petitioner that she should desist from coming to the School from 26th June 2006. Treating this direction which was issued on 22nd June 2006 as an oral termination of service, the Petitioner moved the School Tribunal in an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The School Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. 3. On behalf of the Petitioner, it has been submitted that the objection on the ground that the appeal was time barred, was taken when an application at Exhibit 78 was filed by Respondent Nos.4 and 5. Learned Counsel submitted that when certain proceedings at the interlocutory stage came up before the Learned Single Judge of this Court (Mr.Justice B.H. Marlapalle) on 27th February 2008, the Court was apprised of the fact that three applications had been moved before the School Tribunal. The first, Exhibit 76, was for the deletion of Respondent No.4 from the array of parties; Exhibit 77 was for framing an issue on jurisdiction, while Exhibit 78 was for framing an issue on limitation. The Learned Single Judge disposed of the 4 petition with the direction that Exhibits 76, 77 and 78 pending before the School Tribunal were disposed of as not pressed and with the direction that the appeal shall proceed in accordance with law. Learned Counsel submitted that the objection of limitation was, therefore, not even pressed. In any event, it was alleged, on merits, there was no delay in filing the appeal at all. 4. In my view, the Petitioner is correct on the second limb of the submission, namely, that there was no delay in filing the appeal before the School Tribunal. An appeal before the School Tribunal has to be filed within a period of thirty days under sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act. Under sub-section (3) of Section 9, the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay for sufficient cause. In the present case, the case of the Petitioner was that after she reported back for work upon the expiry of medical leave in the month of April 2006, she was not allowed to sign the Staff Muster since the Academic Year had for all practical purposes come to an end. Upon the reopening of the School in June 2006, the Petitioner was told to wait by the President of the management and it was only after the 5 receipt of the letter of the Education Officer, dated 13th June 2006 that the Petitioner was informed that she should stop reporting to the School from 26th June 2006. The Petitioner has treated this direction which was given on 22nd June 2006 as an oral termination of her services. The appeal before the Tribunal was filed on 26th June 2006. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the School Tribunal has taken rather a technical view of the matter and an erroneous one at that, that the appeal is time barred. The appeal was, in fact, not time barred and should have been heard and entertained on merits. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the School Tribunal dated 23rd April 2008 is set aside. Appeal 59 of 2006 is restored to the file of the School Tribunal. The Tribunal shall now proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits. The petition shall stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. It is, however, clarified that all the observations contained in the present order are confined to the disposal of the question as to whether the appeal was barred by limitation and shall not come in the way of an adjudication by the Tribunal on the merits of the rival contentions in the appeal. There 6 shall be no order as to costs. ......