1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4559 OF 2009. ( Sanjay R. Khillari -: versus :- Ratneshwar Vyayam Krida Va Shikshan and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 12, 2010. Heard Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner / employee and Shri P.S. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.1 / employer. Learned A.G.P. Shri Jaiswal, is present for respondent no.3. Petitioner filed an Appeal No. 10/2009 before the School Tribunal contending that he was orally terminated w.e.f. 12.01.2009. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed reply therein, contending that he was already terminated w.e.f. 13.08.2007. Because of this stand, Appeal No.10/2009 was withdrawn and fresh appeal challenging the termination order dated 13.08.2007 along with Misc. Civil Application No.18/2009 for condonation of delay, was filed. By giving above details, delay was sought to be condoned. In addition petitioner relied upon the application for medical leave allegedly submitted on 01.10.2007. 2 Management pointed out to the School Tribunal that the petitioner was aware of his termination w.e.f. 13.08.2007. School Tribunal after hearing the parties found that petitioner was aware of his termination dated 13.08.2007 and hence it has rejected the application for condonation of delay. Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel contends that material on record has not been appropriately evaluated and finding as reached is erroneous. His contention is, petitioner specifically stated that he was on duty till September, 2007 and this fact has been evaluated by the School Tribunal. Shri P.S. Patil, learned counsel on the other hand states that the prayer was for condonation of delay and the application dated 01.10.2007 produced by the petitioner before the School Tribunal itself demonstrate that on 01.10.2007 petitioner was not permitted to place his signature. He contends that appreciation of this material in paragraph nos. 8 and 9 by the School Tribunal is neither erroneous nor perverse. Application dated 01.10.2007 filed by the petitioner shows that on 01.10.2007 Headmaster did not permit him to place sign on attendance register. It in no way refer to any termination dated 13.08.2007. On the contrary prima facie it shows that till 01.10.2007 petitioner was permitted to sign in attendance register. The said document therefore, could not have been used by the School Tribunal to conclude that petitioner was aware of his termination dated 13.08.2007. 3 The school Tribunal has also not considered the case to find out that if there was a termination on 13.08.2007, who has replaced the petitioner thereafter. In paragraph no.9 it has only found that the termination order was attempted to be served upon the petitioner by hand and he refused. The refusal was in presence of two witnesses. In this situation, the filing of Appeal in 2009 vide Appeal No. 10/2009 assumes importance and impact thereof is again not considered by the school Tribunal. As I find the management could have produced necessary material before the School Tribunal to show that the termination order was served upon the petitioner or then he was aware of that order, I am inclined to give parties one more opportunity to address the School Tribunal on the application for condonation of delay. For that purpose, the order dated 09.07.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. Application at Exh.1 is restored back to the file of the School Tribunal, Amravati for taking fresh decision in accordance with the law. Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.