ANANDILAL GANESH PODAR SOCIETY Vs. V CHAKRAVARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner claims to be established and administered by a linguistic minority and therefore, to be entitled to the protection of Article 30 of the Constitution. The petitioner conducts several educational institutions including Seth Anandilal Podar High School and Junior college at Santacruz (West), Mumbai. The first respondent joined the aforesaid school in 1981 as an Assistant Teacher in the English Medium. In March 1987, the first respondent was appointed as a Supervisor. On 6th June, 1989, the first respondent addressed a letter to the Director of the Management stating that she was tendering her resignation with a request that she be relieved immediately. The first respondent stated that she was ready to pay compensation in lieu of notice and sought "a good reference". The resignation of the first respondent was accepted by the management on 13th June, 1989, subject however to the payment of three months salary in lieu of the period of notice. On 6th July, 1989, the first respondent addressed a letter to the President of the Greater Bombay Secondary Teachers Association stating that ever since the appointment of the new Principal at the School, the incumbent, mrs. Marker, had resented the presence of the first respondent. According to the first respondent in the month of April before the school closed for vacation, the Principal did not meet all the members of the staff and the assignments were handed over to the first respondent not by the Principal, but by a clerk. On 5th June, 1989, the first respondent met the Principal on being called for, when the Principal allegedly sought the time table. Upon being presented with the time table, the Principal is stated to have said that the time table would have to be framed again as there were going to be certain changes. According to the first respondent, the Principal had effectively rendered the post of supervisor redundant and in fact, the principal informed her that if she did not like the change, it was open to the first respondent to resign. The first respondent concluded her letter by stating that she was forced to resign and was later asked to pay three months salary in lieu of notice. Subsequently on 20th July, 1989 a complaint was addressed to the management by Greater Bombay Secondary Teachers Association recording that the first respondent had tendered her resignation in a fit anger during the period of vacation not remembering the fact that the resignation could not be tendered during vacation. Over two months after the tendering of her resignation, the first respondent in a letter dated 25th August, 1989 purported to withdraw the resignation stating that she had handed over the resignation across the table to the Director and which had subsequently been accepted by the Principal.

(2.) THE first respondent thereupon moved the School Tribunal at Mumbai in October 1989. The Management filed its written statement denying the allegations in the memo of appeal. The School Tribunal has by the impugned order dated 16th January, 1991 condoned the delay in filing of the appeal, "set aside" the alleged resignation dated 6th June, 1989 and directed the management to reinstate the First respondent in service with full backwages. The order of the School Tribunal came to be stayed when this Petition was admitted on 24th April, 1991 by the Division Bench. Since the matter pertains to the jurisdiction of the Single Judge under the prevailing Rules on the original Side, the Division Bench directed the office on 14th March, 2002 to place the matter before the appropriate Bench, in pursuance of which the matter has been placed for final hearing before this Court.

(3.) SEVERAL reasons have weighed with the School Tribunal in arriving at its conclusion. The School Tribunal has first and foremost noted the requirement of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 which provides thus: