NAMDEO TUKARAM SHINDE Vs. JAYANT RAMU SALUNKHE CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is not on the board for final hearing today. However, by consent of the parties it is taken up for final hearing and heard finally.

(2.) THE appellant in this appeal challenges the order dated 20th August, 1996 passed by the City Civil Court at Bombay in Short Cause Suit No.3187 of 1996. The trial court by that order restrained the defendant, who is the appellant in the present appeal, from functioning as Head Master on the primary school. The admitted position before me is that the school is run by a public trust which is duly registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act. It is the primary and secondary school. It is also an admitted position that it is recognised by the authorities under the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity). It is also an admitted position before me that the conditions of the service of the employee working in the school are governed by the provisions of the Act. It is also an admitted position before me that the appellant was appointed as Head Master in the year 1991, particularly in the month of June 1991 and that he was continuously working in the post of Head Master till 20th April 1994. The resolution dated 20/4/94 passed by the trust, dismissing the appellant from the post of Head Master on the ground that he is guilty of misconduct. The Chairman of the trust filed a suit, claiming a permanent injunction, restraining the appellant from working as a Head Master. A temporary injunction in the same term was sought. It is also an admitted position before me that before passing resolution dated 20th April, 1994, dismissing the appellant, the management did not hold any enquiry into the alleged mis-conduct of the appellant. Sub-section 6 of Section 4 of the Act reads as under:

(3.) IT appears from the submission made before me by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that he has not disclosed the full facts before the trial court about the registration of the trust and recognition of the school as also regarding the services rendered by the appellant in the school. Therefore, in case an application for the same relied made by the plaintiff after disclosing full facts before the court, this order will not come in the way of the City Civil Court from considering such an application and deciding it on its own merit in accordance with law.