SUDHAKAR CHINDU BHADANE Vs. NIPHAD TALUKA EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the constitution arises from the order passed by the School Tribunal, Nashik region at Nashik on 24-7-1998 thereby dismissing Appeal No. 1/1998 filed under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short MEPS Act).

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as a junior clerk w. e. f. 1-8-1971 in the respondent No. 1 education society. However, he came to be appointed as an assistant Teacher sometimes in the year 1975. On 26-6-1992 he was terminated from service and, therefore, he filed Appeal No. 21/1992 which was allowed by the School Tribunal. Said order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 1548/1994 which came to be dismissed by this Court on 27-6-1994 by Division Bench of this Court.

(3.) As per the petitioner when he went to join for duty on 6-1-1998 he was not allowed to join by the Head Master and, therefore, he met the Chairman of the Society and requested him to allow him to resume his duties. However, the petitioner was not allowed to resume duties and, therefore, he filed Appeal No. 1/1998 on or about 20-1-1998 against the respondents. The management appeared and filed written statement and contended that the allegations of oral, illegal termination are false. The management has not terminated his service and in fact it was the appellant himself who had voluntarily abandoned his service w. e. f. 6-1-1998. It was further contended that when the appellant approached the school Tribunal on 13-3-1998, on 6-4-1998 there was an order directing him to report for duty. The appellant reported for duty but thereafter abandoned his employment. This reply was dated 17-3-1998 and management was claiming that till 6-4-1998 the appellant has not joined for duty. Before the School Tribunal the appellant also brought on record the affidavit of co-employee Sunil Amrutrao pagar who stated that he was working in the same School and the Head Master was not allowing appellant to report for duty. He specifically stated that on 6-4-1998 he had gone with the appellant in the school at Pimplegaon, Baswant and when the appellant expressed his desire to join for duty, the Head Master did not allow him to report and sign the muster-roll. The learned Presiding Officer of the school Tribunal accepted the management's contention that the appellant had in fact voluntarily abandoned service and, therefore, there was no termination of service. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.