1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9379 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.9379 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.9379 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9386 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.9386 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.9386 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.9379 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.9379 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.9379 OF 2007 The Principal, K.I.T.’s College of Engineering & Ors. .... Petitioners. vs. Girish Subhash Muthe & Ors. .... Respondents. Mr. S. S. Pakale for Petitioners. Mr. Amit Borkar for Respondent No. 1. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP., for Respondent no. 2. WRIT PETITION NO.9386 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.9386 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.9386 OF 2007 The Principal, K.I.T.’s College of Engineering & Ors. .... Petitioners. vs. Yeshwant Ramchandra Gaikwad & Ors. .... Respondents. 2 Mr. S. S. Pakale for Petitioners. Mr. Amit Borkar for Respondent No. 1. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP., for Respondent no. 2. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: 17TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE: 17TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE: 17TH JANUARY, 2008. P.C. . These petitions challenge the order passed by the College Tribunal on 7.12.2007. The contention of the petitioners is that the College Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass an order for recovery of the amounts payable to the respondent no. 1 in both the petitions as a consequence of orders passed by the College Tribunal in their favour. The Petitioners had appointed the Respondent No. 1 in both the petitions as Laboratory Assistants. The Respondent No. 1 in both the petitions continued to work with the petitioners till they were served with charge sheets on 14.3.1999. As a result of the chargesheets, enquiries were held and the respondent employees were found guilty of certain misconducts. They were dismissed from service on 29.4.2000. The Respondent employees challenged their dismissal by filing appeals before the College Tribunal. These appeals were allowed. The Petitioners preferred writ petitions and by order dated 28.6.2005 the order impugned was set aside and the 3 applications of the respondent-employees was remanded to the College Tribunal for hearing them afresh. The College Tribunal on remand, passed a common order on 22.12.2005 allowing the appeals. By this order, the College Tribunal directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondents with continuity of service and to pay back wages till the date of their reinstatement. The Petitioners being aggrieved by that order challenged it by preferring two separate Writ Petition Nos. 1289 and 1290 of 2006. This Court admitted the petitions. However, the prayer for interim relief was rejected. The Letters Patent Appeals filed by the Petitioners challenging the refusal of an interim order met with the same fate. Aggrieved by that order, the Petitioners approached the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Pettions. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLPs filed. Thereafter the Respondents moved the Tribunal by filing Application Nos. 1 and 2/07 for compliance of the order dated 1.7.2004. 2. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the preliminary application of the petitioners wherein it has challenged the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to execute its own orders. Under Sections 60, 61 and 63 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, the Tribunal is vested with jurisdiction to execute its own orders. These provisions are similar to the provisions contained in the MEPS Act in Sections 11, 12 and 13 of that Act. By a judgment in Mohammed Salam Anamul Haque 4 vs. S.A. Azmi & ors, reported in 2001 (Supp.2) Bom. C.R. 37, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the order passed by Tribunal can be executed in accordance with the provisions of the CPC. This decision has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court and approved in a decision in the case of ST. ULAI HIGH SCHOOL and another vs. DEVENDRAPRASAD JAGANNATH SINGH and another, reported in 2007 (1) Mh. L. J. 597. 3. We, therefore, do not find any reason to entertain these petitions. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5000/- in each petition. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.)