BABURAO Vs. JAWAHAR EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition No. 878 of 2010 is filed by Assistant Teacher Baburao assailing the judgment dated 30/9/2009 of School Tribunal, Nagpur in his Appeal No. STN/349/1995 allowing it partially by granting him salary of one year and he prays for direction to his Employer and Education Officer to pay him back wages from 19/10/1995 till 31/7/2001 with all consequential benefits. He was terminated on 19/10/1995 and has attained the age of superannuation on 31/7/2001. Employer educational institution has filed Writ Petition No. 3186/2010 for quashing very same judgment. In Writ Petition No. 359/2010 another Assistant Teacher Mrs. Sudha has also assailed the identical judgment dated 30/9/2009 of School Tribunal, Nagpur in her Appeal No. STN/335/1995 allowing it partially by granting her salary of one year and she prays for direction to same Employer and education officer to pay him back wages from 19/10/1995 till 31/7/2002 with all consequential benefits. She was also terminated on 19/10/1995 and has attained the age of5 superannuation on 31/7/2002. However as she worked with other school from 22/2/2001 to 31/7/2002, no relief is sought for this period. Employer educational institution has filed WP 3187/2010 for quashing very same judgment. Baburao joined the services on 1/9/1979 while Sudha joined on 11/8/1981 and both were terminated on 19/10/1995 alleging reduction in number of sections in the employer Night School.

(2.) I have heard Shri Shelat, learned Counsel for Employees, Shri Badhe, learned Counsel for Employer and learned AGP for respective Respondent No.3/2­ Education Officer in all matters. The parties were heard finally with consent by making Rule returnable forthwith in all 4 Petitions.

(3.) Dates of joining and termination and reason therefor are not in dispute. Fact that termination orders are by Headmaster is also not disputed. School Tribunal has found that due to long service in excess of 12 years, both teachers had become confirmed and hence, Rule 26 of Maharashtra Employees of private Schools (conditions of service) Rules,1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1981 Rules" for short), obliged Employer to obtain previous permission of Education Officer and 3 months notice was found not issued. If retrenchment was to be done, junior most employee needed to be sent out and seniority was not observed while terminating teachers who were Appellants before it6 resulting in violation of Rule 27. In case of Baburao, it noticed that though he was working as full time Headmaster in day school, and therefore presumed to be a part­time or temporary teacher, still Rule 28(1) required one month advance notice. Findings reached by it in other Appeal are identical. As it found that both teachers were not totally jobless but worked as regular teachers in day school and earned regular salary, they were not entitled to back wages. It therefore set aside termination of their services as violative of Rules 26,27 and 28(1) of 1981 Rules and granted them one year salary in lieu of back wages. It turned down the contention of Employer that being a night school, provisions of Maharashtra Employees of private Schools (conditions of service) Act,1977 (herein after referred to as "the 1977 Act" for short) and the 1981 Rules framed thereunder were not applicable to it.