JAGDISH THECKEDATH Vs. S KELLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is M. Sc. (Class II) joined the Hills Grange High School and Junior College (second respondent) as a Lecturer on 8th August, 1984. His services were terminated by a letter dated March 31, 1986. The termination letter indicted that Miss S. Kelly who is the Principal of the second respondent school, was advised by the Managing Committee of the second respondent that the services of the petitioner should be terminated. Accordingly, the petitioner was given one month's notice alongwith a cheque of Rs. 4021/- and his services were terminated. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the School Tribunal at Bombay. As and by way of interim relief, he continued in the services of the second respondent. The appeal was contested on behalf of the second respondent by the first respondent (Principal of the School ). Amongst other things, it was contended by the School that the petitioner had joined the union of teachers which was not recognised and because of his conspiracy to defame the School, the prestige of the institution was suffering. The learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal by his judgment and order dated July 11, 1986, partly allowed the petitioner's appeal and quashed and set aside the termination order dated March 31, 1986. However, the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement was rejected and instead the second respondent was directed to pay compensation equivalent to three months' salary at the rate of Rs. 1300/- p. m. to the petitioner.

(2.) BEING dis-satisfied, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing this writ petition.

(3.) IN support of the petition, Mr. Vashi submitted that once the School Tribunal held that the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated, there was no alternative for the School tribunal but to reinstate the petitioner in his original position unless there were compelling reasons not to do so Resisting the petition Mr. Bajaj, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, urged that the relationship of the petitioner with the School authorities was strained he having joined un-recognised union and for carrying out a campaign against the School. The submission of the learned Counsel is that the School could have without assigning any reason whatsoever terminated the services of the petitioner with one month's notice pay but here he was given not only notice pay but three month's salary.