EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. NARAYAN GOVINDRAO DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner- an educational society challenges the order dated 16-3-1993 passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, amravati, whereby the Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to implement the decision of this High Court under section 11 (3) of maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Regulation of Conditions of Service) act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as M. E. P. S. Act) and directed the petitioner to pay to respondent No. 1 amount of Rs. 2,88,401/- within 40 days and in default recommended to the Government to deduct an equal amount from grants due and payable to the petitioner in future and to pay the same to respondent No. 11. This Court has issued notice before admission initially on 3rd August, 1993 and at that time it found that the amount was recovered by respondent No. 1 and as such there was no question of staying further recovery. However, on 6th August, 1993 it was brought to notice of this Court that part of amount was still not recovered and as such this Court granted interim stay which was confirmed on 3-12-1993.

(2.) Petitioner initially appointed respondent No. 1 as Headmaster but he was reverted latter on by resolution dated 11-10-1983 as management found that injustice has been done to one Shri P. M. Joglekar. Respondent No. 1 approached respondent No. 3 School Tribunal in appeal challenging his reversion but said appeal was dismissed on 7-10-1986. Respondent No. 1 thereafter approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 2263 of 1986 and it came to be allowed on 15-3-1990. This Court set aside the resolution of reversion and also the order of Tribunal dated 7-10-1986 and directed the petitioners to restore respondent No. 1 to the office of Headmaster with continuity of service and all back wages. It is the case of petitioner that during pendency of Writ petition 2263 of 1986, respondent No. 1 was paid salary as Assistant Teacher from March 1984 till 7-11-1988. Till then, respondent No. 1 exhausted all types of leaves available to him/to his credit and his subsequent leave beyond 7-11-1988 became leave without pay. Respondent No. 1 reported on duty after High Court allowed his writ petition and joined from 3-4-1990. The difference between amount payable to him as Headmaster and assistant teacher as per orders of High Court worked out to Rs. 13191.45/ only and it was duly paid and received by respondent No. 1. The petitioners contend that accordingly the orders of this Court dated 8-3-1990 stood complied with. Respondent no. 1 was not satisfied with this payment and he continued to insist for payment of salary even for the period which came to be treated as leave without pay by management. As the management did not accede to his demand, he filed Contempt Petition No. 234 of 1991 and on 9-9-1992, Division Bench of this Court found that there was genuine dispute about the interpretation and effect of the order of High Court in writ petition and as such it was not the case of deliberate non-compliance. The High Courts therefore dropped contempt proceedings with liberty to contempt petitioner (present respondent no. 1) to raise dispute before appropriate forum. Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed application under section 11 (3) and section 13 of MEPS Act and claimed the balance salary for entire period including the period which was treated as leave without pay by petitioners. Respondent No. 3 School Tribunal issued notice and made it returnable on 7-12-1992. Accordingly petitioner from yavatmal sent Headmaster to appear in those proceedings but on account of unfortunate event dated 6-12-1992 (Babri Masjid) , curfew was clamped in aurangabad city and the Headmaster could not attend the Tribunal. Said headmaster had carried with him an application raising objection to the very jurisdiction of the Tribunal and also an application seeking better particulars from present respondent No. 1. However, the same could not be filed and as such after his return to Yavatmal, those application were forwarded by post to the Tribunal. The petitioners states that it did not learn anything thereafter and only got knowledge after the Tribunal delivered impugned order.

(3.) I have heard Advocate Mihir Kanade for petitioner and Advocate S. P. Bhandarkar for respondent No. 1. Smt. Talwade, AGP appeared for respondents nos. 2 and 3.