CHAIRMAN MANAGING COMMITTEE Vs. BHAVESHKUMAR MANUBHAI PARAKHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs :

(2.) The case of the management is that respondent No.1 was appointed as a teacher on a temporary basis from year to year basis with continuity of service and that in any view of the matter, his appointment as per the order dated 8.6.1998 was to enure only till May, 1999 and as per the said order, the respondent-teacher was to be paid consolidated salary at the rate of Rs.2,600.00 per month. It is submitted that even if the termination is found to be invalid for any reason, the respondent-teacher would not have been entitled to be continued in employment beyond 31.5.1999. Strong reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Mahendra Singh Dhantwal Vs. Hindustan Motors Ltd., ) 1976) 4 SCC 606, the decision of the Madras High Court in VRMS Bus Service Vs. Labour Court, Coimbatore, 1961 (2) LLJ 507 and on the decision of the Orissa High Court in Hindusthan Steel Ltd. Vs. Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha, 1969 (2) LLJ 202 in support of the contention that even the Labour Courts under the Industrial Laws cannot grant a relief which would go beyond the period for which the workman was appointed.

(3.) On the other hand, the case of the respondent-teacher is that the Tribunal has already held that the petitioner-school management is governed by the provisions of Schedule "F". As per the said provisions, a temporary employee on completion of two years' service shall be treated as a permanent employee and that even a probationer on completion of two years' service is required to be treated as a permanent employee. Reference is also made to the procedure prescribed by Rule 13 of Schedule "F" and to the provisions of Sec. 40B of the Bombay Primary Education Act in support of the submission that the Tribunal has rightly held that the services of the respondent-teacher were terminated without following the procedure prescribed by law; the Tribunal has rightly granted arrears of difference of salary right from the date of appointment. Strong reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in 18 GLR 615, 19 GLR 247, 20(2) GLR 697 and 21(1) GLR 57