SALMABEN S DORDAWALA Vs. HAJAR JANAB AMIL SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a teacher in the Primary School run by the respondent-Management. She made an Application No. 207 of 1988 before the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal complaining that she had not been paid her salary for last four years and prayed that the respondents be directed to pay regular salary to her and to pay arrears from 1-1-1984, as per the revised pay scale. The Management was served and from time to time adjournments were sought and, ultimately, on 18-10-1988, the evidence of the applicant was recorded, and it was adjourned for cross-examination to 19-11-1988. On that day, again the respondent sought adjournment, which was granted. Thereafter also, adjournments were sought and granted and, ultimately, as the respondents did not remain present, the case was decided ex parte against the respondents.

(2.) The case was that the petitioner had not been paid her salary since 1-4-1984 and she was not being paid because she had asked for her full regular salary as per rules. She asked for arrears of salary on basis of her regular pay scale and the computation was produced at Exh. 4. The respondent-School is a recognised private primary school and is governed by Bombay Primary Education Act and is governed by the pay-scales prescribed by the Government from time to time, under Rule 106-E read with the Schedule. However, the Tribunal granted the relief only from 22-5-1986 on the ground that the provisions of Sec. 40G(2) of the Bombay Primary Education Act had come into force from 22-5-1986 and therefore, the claim for salary prior to that period cannot be granted and the claim for the period prior to 22-5-1986 was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Ultimately, the Tribunal directed the respondent-Management to pay to the petitioner from 22-5- 1986 the pay-scale of an Untrained Teacher, as per the pay-scales prescribed by the Government taking into consideration the length of service and to continue to pay salary to her every month. The arrears were directed to be paid within three months of the award dated 28-2-1989. The respondent-Management challenged the decision of the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal by way of Special Civil Application No. 8715 of 1989. That petition has been admitted, but interim relief has been expressly refused.

(3.) On account of the non-compliance with the order of the Tribunal and for disobeying the order of the Tribunal, a Contempt Petition, being Misc. Civil Application No. 895 of 1989 was filed by the petitioner and it came to be disposed of on June 10, 1993. The Division Bench observed that it would have passed an order convicting the Management for committing contempt of Court and passing an order of sentence on them. However, in order to give them one more opportunity, the Division Bench directed the respondents to comply with the order passed by the Education Tribunal within one month. It also observed that if within one month the order passed by the Education Tribunal was not complied with, it would be open to the petitioner to move this Court again to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. It was expressly made clear to the respondents that in such a case the Court would proceed on the basis that they were wilfully disobeying the order passed by the Education Tribunal and action would be taken not only against them but also against all those who were found to be guilty of connivance or negligence in not complying with the order of the Tribunal.