GHATESHWAR SEVA SANSTHA Vs. HEMANT ALIAS VINAYAKRAO PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgments and orders, dated 29.4.2000, passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur in seven appeals preferred by seven employees, holding termination of service effected by the petitioner illegal and directing the Management to pay compensation equal to salary of 24 months and costs of Rs. 2000/-of each appeal in exercise of power under Section 11(f) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), these writ petitions were filed in this Court.

(2.) In support of the writ petitions, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal has found fault with the action of the petitioner -Management in making/offering payment of three months' salary in lieu of three months' notice as contemplated by Rule 25A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service), Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred as to as 'Rules') only on the ground that the said Rule provides for notice of three months but does not provide for salary of three months in lieu thereof. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, this is the only point on which termination of service of these employees have been held to be illegal and consequently, the Tribunal awarded compensation equal to the salary of 24 months. According to him, giving notice of three months does not yield any monetary benefit to the employee on the date of issuance of such notice while making payment of three months' salary at a time on the date of issuance of notice of termination in lieu of three months' notice results into lump sum payment of salary of three months to employee and therefore, by no means it could be inferred that the petitioner -Management committed any illegality. According to him though there is no provision for payment of three months' salary in lieu of three months' notice in Rule 25A of the M.E.P.S. Rules that by itself will not make the termination illegal. For this purpose, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Jha and Ors....Versus...State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2004 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. 721. He then argued that in the alternative the School Tribunal could not have exercised its power under Section 11(2)(f) of the Act and without prejudice to the first contention, recourse to Section 11(2)(e) of the Act could at the most be taken in ordering compensation.

(3.) Per contra, Advocate Shri Joshi holding for Advocate Shri Mardikar for respondents -employees argued that the Tribunal has rightly held that in the absence of any provision of making payment of salary for three months, the petitioner Management could not have done so, it could have only given a notice of three months and the object of giving such notice is to give sufficient period to the employee to search out another employment. He also filed common short note of written argument repeating the said contention and supporting the judgment of the Tribunal.