1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 360 OF 2011. IN WRIT PETITION NO.1607 OF 2000. (New Education Society and another Vs. Sandhya Vishwanath Keche and others) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Shri R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri H.A. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Shri A.D. Sonak, AGP for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 2011. Advocate Sundaram, appearing for appellant-management, contends that the learned Single Judge has proceeded to grant compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- ignoring certain vital aspects. According to him, though there was ex parte ad interim stay dated 21.07.1994 granted by the School Tribunal, the respondent-employee did not try to execute the order of the Tribunal. In the alternative, he relies upon the provisions of Section 11(e) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 to urge that in present facts, when the 2 employment of the respondent was only from 26.03.1994 till 07.05.1994, the compensation could have been of only six months’ salary and not more than that. This rider imposed by State Legislature is overlooked. It is his contention that while exercising powers under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, the said ceiling imposed on power of School Tribunal to grant compensation could not be discarded. Shri Deshpande, Advocate for respondent on the other hand states that the appellant flouted the interim stay granted on 21.07.1994 and after final adjudication on 13.01.2000 by School Tribunal, is raising frivolous defence of non-implementation of the ex parte interim order. In the alternative, he states that when this Court has exercised powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ceiling put by Section 11(e) is not relevant. He has also urged that even if six months’ salary of the respondent-employee is calculated, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- will not be more. We find that the learned Single Judge ought to have attempted to find out whether after 21.07.1994 any effort was made by the respondent- employee to join duties. The School Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on 13.01.2000. The question was therefore, whether the School Tribunal could 3 have awarded relief of back wages to respondent. Facts having bearing on this aspect are also not looked by learned Single Judge. When Section 11(e) puts an embargo upon the power of School Tribunal to award compensation, whether that embargo can be overlooked or deserves to be considered by learned Single Judge is also one of the issues. The impugned judgment delivered by learned Single Judge on 12.08.2010, does not contain even reference to Section 11(e) of the M.E.P.S. Act. Hence, we quash the said judgment dated 12.08.2010. Writ Petition No.1607/2000 is restored to file of the learned Single Judge. It is also made clear that matter is restored only to find out entitlement of respondent to the quantum of compensation. Needless to mention that all the contentions are kept open for consideration by the learned Single Judge. Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed. JUDGE JUDGE NSN