REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Savitri Pushpashil Patel Appellant

V/S

Shri Ganesh Shikshan Sanstha Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ATTORNEY-GENERAL VS. BASTOW [REFERRED TO]
THOMSON VS. CANADA DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE [REFERRED TO]
DWARAKA BAHU UDDESHIYA GRAMIN VIKAS FOUNDATION,BULDHANA VS. PRESIDING OFFICER,SCHOOL TRIBUNAL,AMRAVATI [REFERRED TO]
POPPATLAL SHAH PARTNER OF MESSRS INDO MALAYAN TRADING CO THE UNION OF INDIA VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
NEWSPAPERS LIMITED VS. STATE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL U P [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA DALMIA SHRIYANS PRASAD JAIN JAI DAYAL DALMIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RANI DRIGRAJ KUER VS. RAJA SRI AMAR KRISHNA NARAIN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MADANLAL FAKIRCHAND DUDHEDIYA VS. CHANGDEO SUGAR MILLS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
RAMJI MISSAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
A PANDURANGA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB BEVERAGES PVT LIMITED CHANDIGARH MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED VS. SURESH CHAND:N K SAXENA [REFERRED TO]
TARA PRASAD SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
LALAPPA LINGAPPA MAHADU SITARAM VS. LAXMI VISHNU TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED :LAXMI VISHNU TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
JEEWANLAL LIMITED JEEWANLAL LIMITED BINNY LIMITED MADRAS JEEWANLAL LIMITED VS. AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT:N DURAISWAMY:G SURYANARAYANAN:E GOVINDAN [REFERRED TO]
PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. LABOUR COURT MADRAS:CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. FILIP TIAGO DE GAMA OF VEDEM VASCO DE GAMA [REFERRED TO]
MANORMA VERMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SHREENATH VS. RAJESH [REFERRED TO]
R N DEY VS. BHAGYABATI PRAMANIK [REFERRED TO]
V M KURIAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
ANWAR HASAN KHAN VS. MOHAMMAD SHAFI [REFERRED TO]
D SAIBABA VS. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. JARINA BEE [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MADHUSUDAN PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER HARYANA ROADWAYS VS. RUDHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SHYAM BIHARI LAL GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR AGGARWAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
GURUJI SEVA NYAS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SARAMMA VARGHESE VS. SECRETARY PRESIDENT S I C E S SOCIETY [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA NAGPUR VS. EDUCATION OFFICER NAGPUR [REFERRED TO]
SANGAM EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. BHARTI HANSRAJ BORKAR [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMEDASLAM MUSLIYA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
KASHIRAM RAJARAM KATHANE VS. BHARTIYA R B DAMLE GRAM SUDHAR TATHA SHIKSHAN PRASAR SOCIETY [REFERRED TO]
SUDHAKAR S O VINAYAK KAREGAONKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD SALAM ANAMUL HAQUE VS. S A AZMI [REFERRED TO]
VILAS SHANKARRAO DESHMUKH VS. S A GHODE PRINCIPAL NAVPRABHAT VIDYA MANDIR AND JUNIOR COLLEGE [REFERRED TO]
SHAIKH BADARUNNISA BEGUM SHAIKH ABBAS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. NARAYAN GOVINDRAO DESHPANDE [REFERRED TO]
ST ULAI HIGH SCHOOL VS. DEVENDRAPRASAD JAGANNATH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT VS. SAVITRI W/O PUSHPASHIL PATEL [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR S/O MANIKRAO ANCHULE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
PRABHUDAS DAMODAR KOTECHA VS. MANHABALA JERAM DAMODAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. MD. HUSSAIN @ SALEEM [REFERRED TO]
DEEPALI GUNDU SURWASE VS. KRANTI JUNIOR ADHYAPAK MAHAVIDYALAYA [REFERRED TO]
CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VS. T.T. MURALI BABU [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAKANT GANPAT SHELAR VS. SOPHY KEELY, HILL GARANGE HIGH SCHOOL, BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, TUMSAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Bench has been constituted by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to answer the following question :

(2.) The facts leading to the reference are as under :

(3.) When the matter came up before the learned Division Bench, noticing the view of the learned Division Bench, in (Mohammedi Fida Hussain Vs. State of Maharashtra), 1986(88) Bom.L.R. 557, which held that the power to recommend under sec. 11(3) of the MEPS Act constitutes an independent remedy to an employee of a private school, which decision has been referred/followed in (Sudhakar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others), 2000(4) Bom.C.R. 113; (Badarunnisa Begum Sheikh Abbas Vs. State of Maharashtra and others), 2004(2) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 472(A.B.) : 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 407; (Mohammad Salam Anamul Haque Vs. S.A. Azmi and others), 2001 (Supp.2) Bom.C.R. 37 : 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 249 ; (Vilas Shankarrao Deshmukh and others Vs. S.A. Ghode and others), 2001(2) Bom.C.R. 116 : 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 261, and a similar view taken by the learned Single Judge in (Education Society, Yavatmal Vs. Narayan Govindrao Deshpande), 2005(6) Bom.C.R. 325(N.B.) : 2004(5) Mh.L.J. 417, and being unable to agree with the same for the reasons recorded therein, being of the view that the power to recommend under sec. 11(3) of the MEPS Act, did not constitute an independent remedy, but was an action/ relief which could be granted by the School Tribunal while deciding the appeal under sec. 9 of the MEPS Act, itself, had framed the above question and had requested the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench to decide the same, which is how, the question has come before us for an opinion/answer.

Click here to view full judgment.

SAVITRI PUSHPASHIL PATEL Vs. SHRI GANESH SHIKSHAN SANSTHA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address