1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4566 OF 2009 1 President/Secretary Lady Ratanbhai & Sir Mathuradas Vissanji Academy Dr.S. Radhakrishnan Marg, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 069 2 Head Master, Lady Ratanbhai & Sir Mathuradas Vissanji Academy Dr.S. Radhakrishnan Marg, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 069. ... Petitioners. Versus 1 Mrs. Virgina Dias Karmary Wadi, Tamtalao, Vasai, Thane 401 201 2 Education Inspector Brihanmumbai (West Zone) Jogeshwari (E) Mumbai 400 060. ... Respondents. Mr.A.G.Kothari for the Petitioners. Mr. R.J.Dhond & Ameya Tamhane for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATED : 28th July, 2009. 2 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. By consent of parties, this matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal at admission stage. 2 The respondent No.1 was employed as Assistant Teacher in the Primary School of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 came to be terminated. Being aggrieved by the termination, she filed an appeal before the School Tribunal. Petitioner-Management moved an application in the said appeal raising preliminary objection that the Tribunal did not have any jurisdiction to decide the appeal. According to the petitioners, the jurisdiction would arise only if the Management is made a party respondent in the appeal and as the Management was not made a party, the appeal was not maintainable before the School Tribunal. Thus, application came to be preferred by the petitioner to decide the preliminary issue regarding maintainability of appeal. After hearing both sides, the school Tribunal by order dated 16th April, 2009 rejected the application. The School Tribunal has held that in view of section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, the Tribunal can entertain the appeal even though the Management has not been made a party and it would be open to the Tribunal to direct to add the Management as respondent in the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order this petition has been preferred. 3 3 The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in any appeal before the school Tribunal the Management has to made party. Only when the Management is made a party the School Tribunal would have jurisdiction to decide the appeal and as the Management has not been made a party the School Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the matter. 4 It may be stated at this stage that the respondent has made an application for amendment to implead the petitioner as respondent in the appeal. The said application is still pending before the said Tribunal. 5 In view of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be necessary to see in what circumstances an appeal can be preferred before the Tribunal. Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act deals with Right to employees of private school to prefer an appeal. The relevant portion thereof reads as under: “(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract for the time being in force, any employee in a private school,- a) who is dismissed or removed or whose services are otherwise terminated or who is reduced in rank, by the order passed by the Management; or 4 b) who is superseded by the Management while making an appointment to any post by promotion. And who is aggrieved, shall have right of appeal and may appeal against any such order or supersession to the Tribunal constituted under section 8” 6 After going through Section 9, it is clear that, any employee of a private school can prefer an appeal before the School Tribunal who is aggrieved by an order of dismissal or removal or reduction of rank or supersession passed by the Management. It is seen that to be covered by section 9, two ingredients would be necessary. First ingredient is that, the person has to be an aggrieved employee, and the second ingredient is that, the said employee has to be aggrieved by any order passed by the Management. When both these ingredients are present, the appeal would be maintainable before the Tribunal. 7 It is an admitted fact that, respondent No.1 was employed with the petitioner Management. The grievance of Respondent No.1 is that she was terminated by an order dated 13th April, 2007 by the Management. According to the respondent said order of termination was issued pursuant to resolution of the Management. Thus, it is clear that the respondent is aggrieved by the order passed by the Management i.e. the order of termination of her services. 5 8 No doubt, the respondent has not made the Management a party respondent in the appeal. However, this would not affect the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, as in my view it would always be open to the Tribunal to direct the appellant before it to implead the Management in the appeal. Moreover, Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure gives ample power to the Court to strikeout unnecessary party or add necessary party. 9 No doubt, the Management is necessary party in the appeal before the School Tribunal and without impleading Management, no effective order can be passed in the appeal. However, that does not mean that the School Tribunal should throw out the appeal at the threshold itself, only on the ground that the Management is not made a respondent in the appeal. As observed earlier it can always be directed by the School Tribunal to the appellant to add the Management as respondent. In view of the above facts, no interference is called for. Writ petition is dismissed. 10 At this stage, the Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner wishes to challenges this order, hence the proceeding before School Tribunal may be stayed for a period of four weeks. Considering the request of the learned counsel, the proceedings are stayed before the School Tribunal for a period of four weeks. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]