PRAKASH BHASKARRAO NANDURKAR Vs. KU. SAROJ PANDITRAO DATIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, order dated 9-4-2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal is under challenge. By that order, the revision application seeking to challenge the order dated 27-6-2014 rejecting the application for dropping the proceedings as being barred by limitation has been rejected.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the non-applicant no.1 was in the employment with an institution of which the applicant no.1 was the Secretary and the applicant no.2 was the incharge Head Mistress. The services of the non-applicant were terminated on 23-6-2003. This order was challenged by filing an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1971 (for short, the said Act). The appeal was allowed on 28th June, 2007 by directing reinstatement of the non-applicant no.1 with back wages. This order was challenged by the present applicants by filing Writ Petition No.3254/2007. By judgment dated 28-9-2007, the said writ petition was partly allowed. It was directed that if the services of the non-applicant no.1 were reinstated within a period of eight weeks, she would not be entitled for back wages. If, however, she was not reinstated within a period of eight weeks, the non-applicant no.1 would be entitled to execute the order of grant of back wages. This order passed in the Writ Petition attained finality on 31-1-2008 when the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the applicants came to be dismissed.

(3.) According to the non-applicant no.1, as there was non-compliance with the directions issued in the order of the School Tribunal as confirmed by this Court, she filed Contempt Petition No.142/2008. This contempt petition was disposed of on 4-8-2009 by observing that there was no wilful disobedience of the orders passed. It was clarified that the non-applicant no.1 was entitled for legal remedies available for executing that order. The miscellaneous application seeking review of this judgment was disposed of on 10-2-2010. Thereafter, on 15-6-2010, the non-applicant no.1 filed a complaint under Section 13 of the said Act. The learned Magistrate on 21-2-2011 issued process only against the present applicants who were accused Nos.4 and 12. The applicants then filed an application for dropping the proceedings on the ground that they were barred by limitation. By order dated 27-6-2014 this application came to be rejected on the ground that it was not tenable. The applicants then filed revision application challenging this order. By the impugned order, the revision application has been dismissed.