1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.103 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3187 OF 2007 The Secretary, Kisan Vidya Prasark Sanstha Shirpur,Tq.Shirur,Dist.Dhule and other ...APPELLANTS. VERSUS 1) Vilas Narayan Thorat and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.S.P.Brahme,Advocate for Appellants. Mrs.Pratibha Bharad,Advocate for Respondent No.1 ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By an order dated 10th January, 2008 the learned Single Judge (CORAM: R.M.SAVANT, J.) disposed of four Writ Petitions. 2 3. Mr. Brahme, learned counsel appearing for appellants fairly stated that except respondent- Vilas Narayan Thorat, other employees in the School-College of Physical Education were accommodated in other school-colleges run by the same Management, though, Management preferred to file Writ Petition against all these employees, who had approached Tribunal. The Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order of learned Single Judge in respect of claim of respondent- Vilas Narayan Thorat only. 4. The learned counsel Shri Brahme states that as respondent could not get through his Net Set examination, he is not entitled to be reinstated or accommodated as lecturer, but the Management had offered respondent a post in D. Ed College- School, which the respondent is reluctant to accept. 5. The learned counsel further submits that College of Physical Education is already closed 3 and the Writ Petition in respect of closure is allowed. The Management is in process to complete necessary formalities envisaged in the law for closure of Institution. The learned counsel further submits that the order passed by the Tribunal awarding back wages in the shape of arrears earlier to the order of termination i.e. 30.10.2004 is illegal. Reference was made to the provisions of Section 59, 60 and 61 of the Maharashtra University Act,1994. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the following Judgments. 1. Nagarkar Aajit Chandrakant and others Vs. Mulund Gymkhana’s College of Physical Education and others, reported in 2004 (Supp.)Bom. C. R.771. 2. M.D.Balasaheb Desai Sahakari S.K. Ltd. Vs. Kashinath Ganpati Kambale, in Civil Appeal No. 7249 of 2008(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13112 of 2007),decided on 12.12.2008. 6. Mrs. Bharad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Vilas Narayan Thorat submits that 4 mandatory provisions of law were not adhered to by the Management before Institution was closed down. The Management had accommodated the other employees, but in the case of respondent, the Management neither re-instated nor accommodated him in other Institutions run by the Management, even not paid the back wages as directed by the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel fairly submits that the order of the Tribunal in respect of awarding back wages shall be construed to mean that back wages are awarded from the date of termination i.e. 30.10.2004, calculated on the basis of pay scale, which respondent was receiving prior to the date of termination of his service. The learned counsel submits that contempt petitions in respect of non compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal, are filed and the same are pending. 8. We have perused the Judgments cited supra. The appellants have not challenged the order of the 5 learned Single Judge in respect of other employees. The learned counsel submits that the Management had accommodated other employees, except the respondent-Vilas Narayan Thorat. From the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel Shri Brahme, it is noticed that the management is not inclined to accommodate the respondent, as he has not passed Net Set examination which is mandatory requirement for the person who is working as lecturer, under U.G.C. guidelines but that issue is different from the issue in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 9. The next issue is in respect of payment of back wages. In that respect, we observe that the order of the Tribunal would mean that back wages are directed to be granted from the date of termination i.e. 30.10.2004 calculated on the basis of pay-scale which respondent was receiving prior to the date of termination of service. This interpretation and clarification is even acceptable to the learned counsel appearing for 6 the respondent. 10. Mr. Brahme, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the order of the Tribunal allowing 100% back wages was erroneous. In the facts of the case, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record or perversity in the order of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge to interfere in the order of awarding of back wages. The learned counsel Mr. Brahme in the argument made it clear that issue of reinstatement is not being agitated in the proceedings of present Letters Patent Appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK