1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7300 OF 2009 H.B.P. Bhagwanbaba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & anr. ....Petitioners vs 1. Smt. Suvarna Krishna Shinde & 2 ors. ....Respondents Mr. S.S. Jadhavar i/b Umesh Mankapure for the Petitioners. Mr. I.M. Khairadi for the Respondent No.1. Mr. P.I. Khemani for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 1ST FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The Petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside orders dated 7th August, 2009 and 14th August, 2009, passed by the School Tribunal. The Petitioner has also sought an order to transfer the 2 appeal before the School Tribunal, Solapur to any other School Tribunal. Lastly, the Petitioner has sought an order recalling an order dated 12th August, 2008 passed by this court. 3. Respondent No.1 had filed the appeal before the School Tribunal under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act. Respondent No.2 is the Education Officer and Respondent No.3 is the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal at Solapur. 4. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the School Tribunal, challenging an order terminating her employment. The Petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.8610 of 2007 challenging an interlocutory order passed by the School Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an interlocutory order dated 29th September, 2007, confirmed the stay to the order terminating the first Respondent’s employment dated 14th February 2006. This court, by an interim order had stayed the order impugned therein dated 29th September, 2007, while admitting Writ Petition No.8610 of 2007. By an order and judgment dated 12th August, 2008, Writ Petition No.8610 of 2007 was finally disposed of. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said order read as under :- 3 “6. The petitioner is directed to deposit the arrears of salary, if any, commencing from September, 2007 upto the date of this order within a period of two months from today before the Tribunal. If the salary of September, 2007 has not been deposited, the same may also be deposited within the said period. The Respondent No.3 is directed to withdraw 50 per cent of the said amount. However, such withdrawal will be subject to the final outcome of the order of the Tribunal. Mr. Joshi has fairly agreed that the management will file an undertaking before this Court within two weeks from today stating that the management shall abide by the order of the Tribunal in case any order of back wages is passed by the Tribunal and such order will be complied with within two weeks from the date of the order of the Tribunal, subject to the petitioners right to challenge such order in accordance with law before this Court. 7. In view of what is stated above, the stay granted by the Tribunal shall continue to operate till the Tribunal takes a final decision and such decision is to be taken latest by 31st December, 2008. However, in case the appeal is not decided within the stipulated time, it will be open to respondent No.3 to move an appropriate application before this Court for further direction. It is clarified that this order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides before the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall decide the appeal on its own merits within the stipulated time.” 5. The Petitioner’s main grievance is that the first Respondent has, on one ground or the other, delayed the hearing of the appeal before the School Tribunal despite the fact that this court had, by the above order, directed the appeal to be disposed of, latest by 31st December, 2008. For instance, on 4th December, 2008, the first Respondent made 4 an application for amendment to introduce a new document. I cannot entertain this grievance for the reason that not only was the application allowed by the order of the School Tribunal dated 20th December, 2008, but the same was upheld in a challenge thereto by this court by an order dated 18th June, 2009 in Writ Petition No.1208 of 2009. By the said order, the Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal within eight weeks. The period of eight weeks would have ended on 18th August, 2009. 6. Certain allegations have been made against the first Respondent and the third Respondent in the Writ Petition. It is contended that the third Respondent wrongly kept entertaining applications for adjournment despite the time-bound programme given by this court for the disposal of the appeal. It is pertinent to note that by an order dated 23rd July, 2009, the learned Member of the School Tribunal rejected the application for adjournment. There is, however, no justification for the continued applications for adjournment on the first Respondent’s part after 18th June, 2009. Nor is there any justification for the adjournments on the other occasions after 18th June, 2009, being granted. There was not even an application for extension of time made to this court. This fact assumes importance while considering the impugned order which has proceeded to strike off the Petitioners defence for not having complied with the orders of deposit. 5 The Petitioners grievance is that on the one hand, the first Respondent was enjoying the benefits of the interlocutory orders which even allows her to withdraw fifty percent of the wages and, on the other, she was seeking adjournment after adjournment which were granted despite the Petitioners objections thereto. The Petitioners submitted that they were under a bona fide impression that it was not necessary to deposit the amount for various reasons. Firstly, by an order dated 17th February, 2009 in Writ Petition No.1208 of 2009, the proceeding before the School Tribunal had been stayed. However, the stay stood automatically vacated when the order dated 18th June, 2009 was passed. I will presume, however, that the Petitioners bona fide believed that the stay continued. 7. I am, however, not inclined to entertain the application to modify or recall the order dated 12th August, 2008, despite the fact that there is considerable force in the Petitioners’ submission that the first Respondent was enjoying the benefit of the said order unjustly by refusing to proceed with the hearing of the appeal before the School Tribunal and even otherwise delaying the final disposal thereof, despite the time limit prescribed by this court. Under the Appellate Side Rules, an application for modification must be made before the same court that passed the order sought to be modified. 6 8. I have stated earlier that I will presume that the Petitioners not having complied with the earlier orders was due to a bona fide misinterpretation of facts and a bona fide misapprehension of the law. In the circumstances, the drastic order striking off the defence is not warranted. However, now that the position is clear viz. that they ought to comply with the earlier orders, the Petitioners ought to do so. This, of course, is subject to any modification of the order dated 12th August, 2008. 9. There is no reason to transfer the matter to another Tribunal. Even assuming that the adjournments were wrongly granted, such an order is not justified. 10. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of by the following order :- The impugned orders are set aside, subject to the Petitioners depositing the amounts pursuant to the orders of this court on or before 31st March, 2010. The condition is subject to any modification of the order dated 12th August, 2008. 7 In the event of the amount being deposited on or before 31st March, 2010 as aforesaid, the School Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal on or before 30th June, 2010. No application for adjournment shall be entertained. There shall be no order as to costs.