LATE GULABSINGH NAIK Vs. VILAS BALIRAM PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.3.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 701 of 2007, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent no. 1 herein.

(2.) In support of the appeal, Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants, forcefully relied on the decision in the case of Anna Manikrao Pethe v. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal Amravati, 1997 3 MhLJ 697 and argued that the learned Single Judge ought not to have over turned the finding recorded by the School Tribunal that the appointment of respondent no. 1/employee was not in accordance with Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, since such a preliminary issue was rightly framed by the School Tribunal and was answered accordingly in terms of the dictum in the case of Anna Pethe, supra. He further argued that the misconduct committed by respondent no. 1/ employee was of such a serious nature that the appellants ought to have been given an opportunity to prove the same either before the Tribunal or by allowing the management to proceed with the enquiry in accordance with rules. He then argued that the learned Single Judge erred in remitting the appeal for deciding the question of back wages.

(3.) Per contra, Ms. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, opposed the appeal and argued that the management having not held the enquiry contemplated by the rules against the employee when admittedly a stigma was cast under the termination order, no occasion for allowing the management to hold the enquiry arises. It is the management which has taken the risk of not holding the enquiry before slapping the order of termination with stigma and therefore no such permission can be granted, as claimed by the management.