JAGANNATH LBHIVSEN MISTRY Vs. SATPUDA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the judgment and order dated 19th February, 1997, passed by the School Tribunal, Nasik in Appeal No.51 of 1995. The Petitioner had preferred the aforesaid appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "MEPS Act") challenging the order passed by the Respondent No.3 whereby the School Management had relieved the Petitioner from services on the ground that the Petitioner had resigned his post voluntarily.

(2.) It is the case of the Petitioner that an undated resignation letter was obtained by the Management from him under coercion. It is the further contention of the Petitioner that the said undated resignation letter was misused by the Management by putting the date on the said resignation letter as 1st March, 1995 and accepting the said resignation in the meeting alleged to be held on 29th May, 1995. It is the further contention of the Petitioner that on 31st May, 1995, he became aware of the fact that his undated resignation letter obtained by the Management, has been misused by the Management and that on the basis of the said resignation letter, his services have been put to an end with effect from 31st May, 1995. It is the further contention of the Petitioner that the moment he became aware that he has been wrongfully relieved from the services by misusing the undated resignation letter obtained from him by the Management, on the same day he lodged protest with the Management and also with the authorities in the Education Office. It is the further contention of the Petitioner that since the Management did not consider his request, he was constrained to approach the School Tribunal challenging his removal from services on the basis of alleged letter of resignation. It is the further contention of the Petitioner that the learned School Tribunal without considering the objections raised by him and though he had not admitted the fact that the resignation letter was obtained by the Management on 1st March, 1995, incorrectly recorded that the Petitioner had accepted said fact and proceeded to hold that the resignation was voluntarily submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order passed by the School Tribunal and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate him with continuity of service and back-wages.

(3.) Shri R. J. Godbole, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has failed in properly appreciating the facts involved in the instant case as well as the relevant legal provisions contained in the MEPS Act and Rules. The learned counsel submitted that throughout it was the contention of the Petitioner that the undated resignation letter was obtained by the Management from him some time in the year 1988-89 and that the date appearing on the alleged letter of resignation as 1st March, 1995, was not put by the Petitioner and was not in his handwriting, but was written by somebody else at the instance of the Management. The learned counsel further submitted that the School Tribunal has wrongly recorded that the Appellant had admitted that the alleged letter of resignation was obtained from the Petitioner on 1st March, 1995 and that since he did not raise any dispute till the said resignation was accepted and as a result of which the Petitioner was relieved from the services, the Petitioner has no right to claim that the resignation so tendered was not voluntary.