OMPRAKASH SHRAWAN DESHPANDE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER SCHOOL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Jibhkate, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Mandpe, A. G. P. for respondents No. 1 and 4 and Shri Samarth, advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.

(2.) BOTH these writ petitions arise out of a common judgment delivered by the School Tribunal, Nagpur, in Appeal No. STN/144 of 1989 and Appeal No. STN/145 of 1989. The services of both the petitioners were terminated with effect from 19-7-1989 and petitioner in Writ Petition No. 963 of 1992 (Omprakash, Peon) challenged his dismissal in Appeal No. STN/145 of 1989. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1154 of 1992 (Alaram, Clerk) challenged his dismissal by filing Appeal No. STN/144 of 1989. Both these appeals have been finally decided on 10-3-1992 and the School Tribunal allowed the same. The orders of termination were set aside and the management was directed to reinstate both these petitioners with continuity with effect from 19-7-1989. The claim of petitioners for arrears of emoluments between 19-7-1989 till 10-3-1992 was disallowed. Both the petitioners have filed the petitions challenging this denial and seeking direction of payment of back wages in their favour.

(3.) ADVOCATE Shri Jibhkate argued the matter for the petitioners. He con-tended that having allowed the appeals denial of back wages was totally un-warranted. He relies upon the judgment in the case of (Ex. Engineer, PWD and another v. The Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur and another)1, reported at 1995 (II)C. L. R. 393; (Amgrez Singhv. State of Punjab and another)2, reported at 2003 (II)C. L. R. 308; (Nicks (India) Tools v. Ram Surat and another)3, reported at 2004 (III)C. L. R. 557 and (Chandrapur Dist. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Industrial Court, nagpur and another), reported at 1995 (II) C. L. R. 735, in support of his contention. He contends that grant of back wages must follow automatically when reinstatement is ordered and further states that burden of proof that the petitioners were gainfully employed in the meanwhile was upon the respondent Management. He points out that the School Tribunal has declined to grant back wages mentioning that there is no averment in the appeals that the appellants before it were not gainfully employed anywhere. He states that in the absence of finding that the petitioners were gainfully employed in the intervening period, there is no reason to deny them back wages.