WARES EDUCATIONAL TRUST Vs. SUBHASH BHAGWAN KHEDKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties and at their request taken up for final hearing.

(2.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners challenge an order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai (for short "the Tribunal"). By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the application preferred by Respondent No.1 for condonation of delay of three years and eight months in filing an appeal under Section 9(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (conditions of service) Regulation Act,1977, against the oral termination dated 2.4.2007.

(3.) The Petitioner no.1 is a Trust conducting the Petitioner no.2 High School, a Marathi Medium Secondary School. Respondent no.1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Petitioner no.2 school. It is the case of Respondent no.1 in the delay condonation application that on 2.4.2007 he was orally informed through a peon of the Petitioners that he was terminated from the services of the Petitioner no.2 School. That on 3.4.2007 when Respondent no.1 went to attend the duties, he was restrained by Mr.Anil Ware son of Tulshiram Ware, the President of the Petitioner no.1, from doing so on the ground that he was terminated from service. It was the case of Respondent no.1 that Mr.Anil Ware had threatened him of police power as also was beaten up with the help of some persons and threatened of dire consequences. Respondent no.1 somehow escaped and rushed to Dindoshi Police Station to lodge a complaint against Mr.Anil Ware and others, however, the police officers refused to lodge a complaint as they had a departmental connection with Mr.Anil Ware and his Father Mr.Tulshiram Ware who was a retired Assistant Police Inspector from Mumbai Police Department. It was the case of the Respondent no.1 that he has no alternative but to leave the city of Mumbai and return to his native place at Ahmednagar. Respondent no.1 had averred that his father was not keeping well and therefore, he had not informed his father about the termination and the incident that had taken place, but informed that he was on summer vacation. However, on the insistence of the members of the family in October,2007 he narrated the incident. The Respondent no.1's father who was not keeping well was required to be hospitalised for a period of two and half months between October,2007 to December,2007 for the ailment of hypertension and chest pain, due to shock suffered by him. The Respondent no.1 stated that he was financially weak and got his father discharged from the hospital but he was advised by the Doctor to visit the hospital on regular basis for necessary check ups. The medical papers pertaining to his father's treatment were placed on record of the Tribunal. The Respondent no.1 stated that he being the only male member was required to do all work outside the house, to take his father to the hospital and to look after all household affairs and therefore, could not leave Ahmadnagar to come to Mumbai and take steps to file appeal against the oral termination. As his father was bed-ridden and helpless and as there was nobody to look after the farming work, he was required to look after the cultivation which was the only source of livelihood for himself and his parents.