Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors

3. The appellant was appointed as a teacher in Nandanvan Vidya Mandir (Primary School) run by a trust established and controlled by Bagade family. The grant in aid given by the State Government, which included rent for the building was received by Bagade family because the premises belonged to one of its members, namely, Shri Dulichand. In 2005, the Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad raised a tax bill of Rs.79,974/- by treating the property as commercial. Thereupon, the Headmistress of the school, who was also President of the Trust, addressed a letter to all the employees including the appellant requiring them to contribute a sum of Rs.1500/- per month towards the tax liability. The appellant refused to comply with the dictate of the Headmistress. Annoyed by this, the management issued as many as 25 memos to the appellant and then placed her under suspension vide letter dated 14.11.2006. She submitted reply to each and every memorandum and denied the allegations. Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad did not approve the appellant’s suspension. However, the letter of suspension was not revoked. She was not even paid subsistence allowance in terms of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, ‘the Rules’) framed under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act’).

4. Writ Petition No.8404 of 2006 filed by the appellant questioning her suspension was disposed of by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court vide order dated 21.3.2007 and it was declared that the appellant will be deemed to have rejoined her duties from 14.3.2007 and entitled to consequential benefits in terms of Rule 37(2)(f) of the Rules and that the payment of arrears shall be the liability of the management. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of that order read as under:

(f) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, as specified in paragraph 11 of the order and judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Hamid Khan Nayyar s/o Habib Khan v. Education Officer, Amravati and others (supra). The petitioner shall be deemed to have rejoined the duties from 14.3.2007 and entitled to consequential benefits that would flow out of Rule 37 (2)

(f). The payment of arrears shall be the liability of the management.”

(1) On receipt of an appeal, where the Tribunal, after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties of being heard, is satisfied that the appeal does not pertain to any of the matters specified in section 9 or is not maintainable by it, or there is no sufficient ground for interfering with the order of the Management it may dismiss the appeal.

(4) Any direction issued by the Tribunal under sub-section (2) shall be communicated to both parties in writing and shall be complied by the Management within the period specified in the direction, which shall not be less than thirty days from the date of its receipt by the Management.

(2) The period of suspension shall not exceed four months except with the prior permission of such appropriate authority.

30. In Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. V. Venkatesan (supra), the Court noted that after termination of service from the post of conductor, the respondent had acquired Law degree and started practice as an advocate. The Industrial Tribunal declared the termination of the respondent’s service by way of removal as void and inoperative on the ground that the Corporation had not applied for approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. At one stage, the High Court stayed the order of the Industrial Tribunal but finally dismissed the writ petition. The workman filed application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming full back wages. The Labour Court allowed the claim of the respondent to the extent of Rs.6,54,766/-. The writ petition filed against the order of the Labour Court was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench. This Court referred to the earlier precedents and observed:

33. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:

36. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the learned Single Judge of the High Court committed grave error by interfering with the order passed by the Tribunal for payment of back wages, ignoring that the charges levelled against the appellant were frivolous and the inquiry was held in gross violation of the rules of natural justice.

37. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the order passed by the Tribunal is restored. The management shall pay full back wages to the appellant within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which it shall have to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the appellant’s suspension till the date of actual reinstatement.

38. It is also made clear that in the event of non-compliance of this order, the management shall make itself liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

August 12, 2013.