MOHAMMAD SALAM ANAMUL HAQUE Vs. S A AZMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging that the respondents have wilfully committed breach of the order dated 16-10-1995 passed by the School Tribunal, Nasik region, Nasik in Appeal No. 22 of 1993 filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts that are material and relevant for the present purpose are that, according to the petitioner he was in service of the respondent No. 3/school since 1990. His services were terminated on 30th April, 1993 by the management. Therefore, he filed an appeal before the School Tribunal under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (herein after referred to as the "act" ). Some other employees of the respondent No. 3, whose services were also terminated had also filed appeals. Their appeals were registered as Appeal No. 21/93 and Appeal No. 23/93. All these three appeals namely Appeal No. 21 of 1993, No. 22 of 1993 and Appeal No. 23 of 1993 filed by the petitioner were decided by the School Tribunal by its order dated 16-10-1995. All the three appeals were allowed. The management was directed to reinstate all the three appellants in their original posts with back wages. 40 days time was given to the management to comply with the order. It transpires that the management filed Writ Petition No. 6096 of 1996 in this Court and this Court on 20th December, 1996 passed an order granting interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (c ). By prayer Clause (c) stay of the order passed by the School Tribunal dated 16-10-1995 was sought. It further transpires that though to the Writ Petition No. 6096 of 1996 only the appellant in Appeal No. 21 of 1993 before the School Tribunal was joined as the respondent, stay of the common order dated 16-10-1995 in all the three appeals came to be granted. Therefore, Civil Application No. 2401 of 1999 was taken out for clarification of that order. Order of this Court dated 20th December, 1996 was clarified by order dated 2nd July, 1999 and it was made clear that operation of the interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 6096 of 1996 is restricted only to the respondent No. 4 in that petition. To the Writ Petition No. 6096 of 1996 the present petitioner was not joined as the respondent. It is therefore obvious that the order of the School Tribunal dated 16-10-1995 in so far as it grants reinstatement in service with full back wages to the petitioner was not stayed by this Court. It may be mentioned herein that though the school Tribunal made an order in favour of the petitioner, the management on its own did not comply with that order, after, as stated above, the interim stay order of this Court was clarified by this Court by order dated 2nd July, 1999. Notice dated 2nd November, 1999 was served on the management calling upon it to comply with the order of the School Tribunal. Still the management did nothing and therefore the petitioner has filed this contempt petition under section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

(3.) PERUSAL of section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act shows that it vests in every High Court jurisdiction and powers to punish the person who commits contempt of the courts subordinate to it. In the present case, the allegation is that the respondents have not obeyed the order made by the Court subordinate to this Court.