RAJASHREE PRATHISTHAN WAMBORI SANCHALIT Vs. SONAWANE RAJENDRA PUNJAHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) CRUCIAL question is as to whether the preliminary issues ought to have been framed by the Tribunal in keeping with spirit of Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act 1977. The preliminary points are required to be framed and decided before the appeal proceeds on merits is explicit from the Judgment in "Anna Manikrao", (supra). The question regarding recognition of the School by the Government is one which goes to the root of the matter. The status of a teacher, his entitlement of the salary and entitlement to other incidental benefits arising out of the appointment, the dues which are required to be calculated after the legal or illegal termination, whatsoever it may be, are the questions which cannot be determined without considering the nature of his appointment. Therefore, before hearing of the appeal it is essential that the Tribunal should frame preliminary issues in keeping with the directions of this court as held in "Anna Manikrao Pethe" (supra). If the findings on the preliminary issues are negatived, the appeal must fail then and there, itself. Consequently, framing of such preliminary points is the requirement of Law and particularly when there is a specific request made by a litigating party. It is expected, in fact, that the Tribunal suo motu should raise such preliminary points before hearing of the appeal, unless, there is no dispute regarding the factual aspects and hence determination of preliminary points is un-essential. The application should not have been rejected without assigning appropriate reasons when there was a dispute regarding the nature of the appointment of the School Teacher/appellant before the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, it will have to be said that the view taken by the Tribunal is incorrect in the eye of law.