EKVEERA DEVI SANSKRUTIK MANDAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing.

(2.) THE petitioner-management Shri Ekveera Devi Sanskrutik Mandal, Dhulia and another have approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition, being aggrieved by the judgment and order, dated 13-2-2001, passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nasik Region, Nasik, in Appeal No. DHL-36/96 which was filed by the appellant Nimba Kashinath Patil, respondent No. 2 herein, under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity referred to as "the MEPS Act" ).

(3.) THE factual matrix of the matter is as follows : respondent No. 2 Nimba Kashinath Patil was appointed by the petitioner-management in July, 1994 as a peon in Shri Ekveera Devi Sanskrutik Mandal, Dhulia. He worked there on the said post till 3-8-1996 and his performance was satisfactory. There were no complaints against him and he was never issued any memo. According to respondent No. 2, though he was appointed by the said management, he was not given any written appointment order and was also not allowed to sign the muster roll till November 1994. It is his case that the petitioner-management transferred him from their secondary school to the primary school with effect from 8-9-1995 but when on 3-8-1996 he went to attend his duties, the Headmaster of the secondary school did not allow him to work and informed him orally to return the uniform of the school. No written termination order was given to him, even though he asked for it. His services were thus orally terminated from 2-8-1996. Respondent No. 2, therefore, filed appeal before the school Tribunal, with a prayer to set aside the said termination order, which according to him, was illegal, and for reinstatement along with benefit of full back wages and continuity in service. Before the School Tribunal, the petitioner-management filed their say and denied all the allegations made by respondent No. 2. Their case was that the appellant (respondent No. 2 herein) was working with them from July, 1994 till 3-8-1996 as a peon, but from June, 1996 he was working as a peon in Balmandir, run by them, and that during his service period he removed some important documents from the office of the management and misused them. According to them, one Smt. Borse, Headmistress of the school, had some dispute with the management and that it was she who helped the appellant/respondent No. 2 herein to prepare some forged letters, including the letters of appointment bearing the date 6-7-1994. Because of the misconduct of the appellant, the management had also lodged some police complaint and thereafter terminated his services. The case of the management was that as per the M. E. P. S. Act and the Rules framed thereunder, they were not required to give him any notice and that the contention of the appellant that his services were illegally terminated, was not correct.