DWARAKA BAHU UDDESHIYA GRAMIN VIKAS FOUNDATION BULDHANA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER SCHOOL TRIBUNAL AMRAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is preferred by the Management challenging the judgment and order dated 21-6-2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, in Appeal No. 41 of 2005, partly allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2/employee challenging his termination. The order of termination has been set aside. However, the order of reinstatement has not been passed on the ground that the School was closed down. The School Tribunal has further held that the respondent/employee is entitled to 50% back wages. The Education Officer is directed to include the name of the respondent/employee in the list of surplus staff for the purposes of absorption, as provided by Rule 25A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the MEPS Rules"), on the ground that the School is closed down.

(2.) The petition further challenges the order dated 20-3-2009 passed by the School Tribunal allowing Misc. Application/Review Petition No. 36 of 2008 filed by the respondent/employee. By this order, the termination of the respondent/employee effected on 22-11-2005 is declared as illegal and void and the petitioner/Management is directed to reinstate the respondent/employee on the post of Assistant Teacher. Although in the earlier original order the reinstatement was refused on the ground that the School is closed down, that part of the order has been reviewed and the order of reinstatement has been passed. The order of 50% back wages passed earlier has been maintained.

(3.) The first question, which arises for consideration, is whether the School Tribunal has power to review its own order. Shri Kathane, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has urged that there is no power of review conferred upon the School Tribunal and it is well settled that unless the power of review is specifically conferred by the Statute, such power cannot be exercised. Shri Patil, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/employee, relying upon the provision of Section 10(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the MEPS Act"), has urged that the School Tribunal has power to review its own order.