1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 242 OF 2010 People’s Education Society, Kolhapur. ... Petitioner v/s 1. Mrs. Patil Komal Sanjay 2. The Education Officer(s), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur & anr. ... Respondents Mr.C.K.Bhangoji h/for Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the petitioner. Mr.A.M.Joshi for respondent No.1. Mr.P.I.Khemani, A.G.P. for Resp. No.2. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed against the order passed by the School Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 16.9.2009, the School Tribunal has declared that the termination of service of respondent No.1 was illegal as the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Committee was not fair and proper. The findings of the Committee have also been set aside by the Tribunal. The petitioner has, therefore, been 2 directed to reinstate the respondent No.1 on her original post with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 12.9.2000. 2. Admittedly, respondent No.1 employee has been reinstated in service on 1.10.2009 i.e. almost immediately after the impugned order was passed. 3. It is now contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal ought not to have granted back wages to the respondent since she was gainfully employed after her services were terminated by the petitioner. Reliance is placed on a document dated 10.10.2007 in which the petitioner has stated that the respondent is working elsewhere and, therefore, has not resumed duty with the petitioner. The learned advocate for the petitioner makes a grievance that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration this document. According to Mr.Joshi, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent, this document dated 10.10.2007 which is in a form of an additional pleading, has not been served on the respondent at all and, therefore, the respondent had no opportunity to controvert the contention in that document. The learned advocate further points out that the respondent has stated on affidavit that she was not 3 employed during the period of termination. He further points out that the petitioner was directed not to employ anyone in place of respondent No.1 during the period of pendency of the appeal before the School Tribunal. 4. Reliance placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Nagpur & ors. v/s Aashsh s/o Vasantrao Dabhade & anr., reported in 2010 (4) Mh.L.J. 324 is, in my opinion, misplaced. In the present case, the respondent had averred that she was not gainfully employed. The management did not examine any witness or place on record any material to show that the respondent was in fact gainfully employed in any other institution. Merely by making a bald statement in its contention filed on 10.10.2007 would not suffice to show that in fact the respondent had been gainfully employed. Once an employee states that she was not gainfully employed, the onus shifts on the management to prove otherwise. 5. Writ petition rejected. ..... 4 5