KHUSHAL KHEMCHAND MATAI Vs. SITALDAS HARCHANDANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a contempt petition which discloses a very sorry state of affairs. The petitioner was working as a teacher since 1964. However, as far as the management of the second respondent-Trust is concerned, he joined the services as Head-master under the appointment order, dated 13th June, 1990. He was confirmed as a head-master on 19th august, 1991. It, however, appears that on account of internal disputes in the management, a new body took over the management of the second respondent-Trust in October/november, 1991. The new body forthwith terminated the services of the petitioner on 16th November, 1991 and directed him to work as an Assistant Teacher. The petitioner filed an appeal before the School Tribunal, Bombay and contended that termination of his services was in contravention of the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Maha-rashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 31st March, 1992 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner ; set aside the order of termination, dated 16th November, 1991 and directed the second respondent-management to reinstate the petitioner to the original post as a head master and pay him difference of emoluments including pay and allowances from 16th november, 1991 till he was reinstated to the original post of head-master. The second respondent-management was directed to comply with this order within 40 days of the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment and order.

(2.) ON 23rd April, 1992 the petitioner approached the second respondent-Trust alongwith a copy of the judgment and requested the chairman and Hon. Secretary to comply with the said order. The first respondent is the Hon. Secretary of the second respondent-Trust. The first respondent endorsed on the said letter acknowledging the receipt of the letter but mentioning that the management wanted to approach the High Court as per legal procedure and, therefore, the order was not enforceable immediately. This endorsement has been reproduced at Page 30 below the letter dated 23rd April, 1992 submitted by the petitioner. On 15th June, 1992 the respondents moved the School Tribunal without giving any notice to the petitioner and prayed for extension of time to comply with the Tribunal's order dated 31st March, 1992 which had, by that time, already become enforceable. The Tribunal, without giving the petitioner any opportunity of being heard, extended the time to comply with the order by 15th July, 1992 and directed the respondents to report compliance. This order was passed on 15th June, 1992 itself. Even by 15th July, 1992, there was no compliance with the order dated 31st March, 1992 and hence this contempt petition was filed on 22nd July 1992. Rule was issued in this petition on 14th September, 1992. Shri masand for the petitioner has pointed out to me that the first respondent was served on 24th September, 1992 but even prior thereto the second respondent was served on 17th September, 1992.

(3.) THE respondents filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ petition No. 548 of 1993 challenging the order passed by the School Tribunal. When the petition came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 23rd April, 1993, Puranik and Vaidya, JJ. passed the following order :