1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.4305/2007 Public Education Society, Murtizapur Vs Abdul Wahid s/o Abdul Hamid andothers. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE, J. DATED : 27/8/2008. Heard Mr. S. Raisuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. De, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr. R. J. Mirza, learned counsel for respondent no.2. None for respondent no.3. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 17th July, 2007 passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati in Appeal No.81/2003 allowing the appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions Of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 filed by respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 was appointed as Peon in the school run by the petitioner with effect from 1.7.1998. It is the case of respondent no.1 that he was not allowed to sign muster roll with effect from 17.6.2003 and in spite of his efforts to join the duties he was not allowed to join the duties and, 2 therefore, he filed appeal before the School Tribunal on 16th October, 2003. According to the management, respondent no.1 had remained absent from duties for a considerable length of time and on 2.9.2003 he tendered resignation. It is also the case of the management that there were several complaints against the petitioner regarding his mis-behaviour with the girl students of the school. The School Tribunal, after hearing the parties held that the appeal filed by respondent no.1 was within limitation, and that respondent no.1 was entitled to reinstatement since he was illegally terminated. At the out set, Mr. Raisuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal filed by respondent no.1 was time barred and the finding given by the Tribunal that the appeal was within limitation is perverse. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in not accepting the version of the petitioner that respondent no.1 tendered his resignation on 2.9.2003. He further submitted that respondent no.1 did not obey the order given by the management transferring him to some other school and it is on account of the transfer order that respondent no.1 remained absent from the duties. Mr. De, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent no.1 submitted that the findings given by the School Tribunal are based upon proper appreciation of the 3 materials on record and, therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned order. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused record. Insofar as issue of limitation is concerned, in my opinion, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appeal was filed within limitation. Although it is the case of respondent no.1 that he was not allowed to join the duties from 5.8.2003, in the absence of any written order, he was justified in approaching the school authorities to join duties and it is only after his efforts to join duties failed, he preferred an appeal on 16/10/2003. Therefore, the finding given by the Tribunal that the appeal was within limitation cannot be faulted. Insofar as the claim made by management that respondent no.1 tendered his resignation on 2.9.2003 is concerned, the Tribunal in paragraph 11 of the impugned order has given the reasons for not accepting the version of the management and for accepting the version of respondent no.1 that his signature was taken on blank paper. The reasons given by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse rendering the finding on the issue of resignation perverse. I, therefore, find no merit in the submission made by Mr. Raisuddin that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the version of the management that respondent no.1 has tendered resignation 4 on 2.9.2003. Insofar as the claim made by the management that respondent no.1 did not obey the oral order given by the management transferring him some other school is not concerned the Tribunal is justified in holding that the such an order is not contemplated under the Act. An employee of the school can only be transferred by written order since such an order has serious consequences. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the version of the management in this regard. In any event, if respondent no.1 had remained absent without seeking prior permission of the management or leave, the management was obliged to hold inquiry against respondent no.1. However, no enquiry has been done by the management against respondent no.1. Therefore, this version of the management cannot be accepted. For the reasons stated, I do not find any merit in the petition. The petition is rejected. JUDGE Ambulkar.