1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7012 OF 2009 Jayashree Ramesh Thorat .. Petitioner Vs The General Secretary Chembur Karnataka Sangha and Another .. Respondent Mr. Mohan Shetty for the petitioner Mr. Kiran Bapat i/b M/s. Desai and Desai Associates for the respondent Mr. A.P. Vanarase, AGP for the State CORAM : Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : 24th September, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - original complainant, the learned counsel for the respondent - Sangh and the learned AGP for respondent no. 2 2. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally. 3. The petitioner was working in respondent no. 1 Sangh as a 'Computer Instructor'. She came to he terminated by order dated RMA wp7012-09.sxw 2 30th April, 2007. Being aggrieved thereby, she preferred appeal before the School Tribunal, Bombay. By order dated 3rd October, 2008, the said appeal came to be allowed. The order of termination was set aside. The respondent Sangh was directed to reinstate the petitioner to her original post of 'Computer Instructor' without back wages. The respondent Sangh was directed to comply with the said order within six weeks of the order. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 11(3) of the MEPS Act for direction to pay emoluments till reinstatement. According to the petitioner, the respondent Sangh committed contempt of the order of Tribunal by not reinstating her in service. The said application came to be rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 9th July, 2009. Hence, this petition. 4. The order of the Tribunal is dated 3rd October, 2008. It is an admitted fact that the letter dated 12th November, 2008 was issued by the respondent Sangh to the petitioner whereby she was informed that she should immediately join the duty on receipt of the letter. The petitioner has not joined as according to the petitioner, earlier she was working for five hours in a day. RMA wp7012-09.sxw 3 However, as per service rules of the Sangh which was annexed to the letter dated 12th November, 2008, she would have to work for eight hours in a day. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent Sangh was not entitled to frame such service rules and the service rules have been framed merely to defeat the judgment of the Tribunal dated 3rd October, 2008 whereby she was directed to be reinstated. Thus, her case is that the respondent Sangh committed contempt of the order of the Tribunal by introducing separate set of rules to govern the services of the petitioner. Therefore, she filed application and prayed that the Tribunal should invoke its jurisdiction under Section 11(3) of the Act and direct the respondent Sangh to pay the emoluments which she was receiving prior to her termination i.e sum of Rs. 5500/- per month and the same be paid to her directly till she is reinstated by respondent sangh. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal was wrong in rejecting the application as under Section 11(2) and Section 11(3) of the MEPS Act, the application of the petitioner was very much maintainable. It appears that the main grievance of the RMA wp7012-09.sxw 4 petitioner is in respect of her working hours. It is her contention that by framing service rules, the respondent Sangh is asking her to work for eight hours. According to the petitioner, previously she was working for five hours. Now, her workings hours are increased. It is her contention that, service rules are made to defeat the order of this Tribunal. 6. I have perused the service rules. The service rules show that these rules are applicable to all the staff of the respondent Sangh. From the service rules, it is clear that the service rules have not been framed by the respondent Sangh merely to defeat the order of the Tribunal in respect of the petitioner. In view of this fact, it cannot be said that by introducing new services rules whereby the duty hours are increased, the respondent Sangh had committed contempt of the order of the Tribunal. It is pertinent to note that even before the Tribunal, in her appeal, the petitioner had raised objection in relation to her working hours. When the appeal was pending before the Tribunal, the respondent Sangh wrote a letter to the petitioner asking her to join duty and informed her that she will have to work for eight hours including 1/2 hour lunch. However, RMA wp7012-09.sxw 5 after hearing both sides in the said appeal, though the order of reinstatement was passed in favour of the petitioner, there is no reference of working hours in the said order. From the material on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner has proved that her duty hours prior to her termination were five hours. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the service rules could not have been framed by the respondent Sangh and the respondent Sangh had no authority to frame such rules. It is further submitted that the said service rules are in contravention of MEPS Act and Rules. If at all the petitioner had any grievance in respect of service rules framed by the respondent Sangh, obviously the same cannot be agitated in an application under Section 11(3) of the MEPS Act, hence the Tribunal was right in observing that that the Tribunal was not a proper forum to hear such grievance. 8. It is seen that the respondent Sangh within stipulated time of six weeks given by the Tribunal had asked the petitioner to join duty. The petitioner has not joined the duty though she had received the said letter. In view of the fact that the respondent Sangh had issued letter directing her to join the duty, the petitioner ought to RMA wp7012-09.sxw 6 have joined the duty immediately and thereafter she could have agitated before the proper forum. However, it is seen that since 12th November, 2008, the petitioner has not joined the duties and she has avoided to do so. When the petitioner not joined the duties and she has not worked, the Tribunal was right in observing that directions could not be given to the respondent Sangh to pay emoluments to the petitioner as prayed by her. When the respondent Sangh directed her to join duty immediately, yet the petitioner failed to join the duty, she would have no right to claim any emoluments for this period. The Tribunal after considering all these facts has rejected the application preferred by the petitioner. In view of above facts, no interference is called for. Writ petition is dismissed. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) RMA wp7012-09.sxw 7 RMA wp7012-09.sxw