HELEN DAVID Vs. IMPERIAL HIGH SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by a school teacher challenging the legality and prosperity of the order dated 16th December 1988 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Mumbai, in Appeal No.GEN/148/BOM/71 of 1988. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer held that the oral termination of the appellant on 13.6.1988 by the school management was not legal and proper. We do not find it necessary to express any opinion regarding the correctness of this finding as, in our opinion, the latter part of the order is absolutely justified.

(2.) AFTER holding that the termination is not legal and proper, the learned Presiding Officer addressed himself as to whether he should order reinstatement with back wages. Section 11 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), in our opinion, fives ample discretion to the Presiding Officer to reinstate the employee or not to reinstate the employee and where it is decided not to reinstate the employee or in any other appropriate case, to give to the employee twelve months' salary if he has been in the service of the school for ten years or more and six months' salary if he has been in service of the school for less than then years. The learned Presiding Officer's decision not to reinstate and merely award six months' salary is based on very cogent reasons. Admittedly, the teacher was in this school from 1.8.1986 to 30.4.1988. During 1986-87 the teacher took casual leave for 15 days, enjoyed unauthorised leave for 55 days and came late to the school on 86 days. During 1987-88 she took casual leave for 15 days, enjoyed unauthorised leave for 68-1/2 days and came late on 45 days. The management had to give memos to her. The teacher had also taken loan for going abroad. She had taken advances amounting to Rs.11,100.00 and those advances were used for flying frequently to Singapore and brining articles therefrom and selling them at Olhasnagar or at Mumbai and even to the staff and students. Besides being irregular and unpunctual, her performance as a teacher was also extremely unsatisfactory. She never completed the required registers, progress report, etc. and, in fact, there was unrest amongst the students and the students had actually turned violent due to her presence in the school. It is also to be noticed that after her termination, vacancy was advertised on 7-5-1988 but she never applied for the same. The learned Presiding Officer, on these facts, held that it was neither desirable nor appropriate to reinstate the teacher and it would create perpetual unrest and difficult atmosphere in the school. It is on this reasoning that the learned Presiding Officer though allowed the appeal and held that the termination is illegal, did not grant reinstatement but awarded six months' salary by way of compensation.

(3.) IN the result, the petition fails and the rule is discharged with costs.