ABDUL MANAN AZMI Vs. SAYED MOHAMMED ASKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Headmaster and trustee of An-juman Riyazul Islam High School is challenging legality of judgment dated january 16, 1985 delivered by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Bombay, in appeal preferred by an employee under Section 9 (1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). The facts which gave rise to the passing of this order are as follows:

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 was initially appointed on January 19, 1983 as a peon in the School and the order was to Be effective from February 1, 1983. In March 1983, the respondent No. l was appointed as a Junior Clerk but without any appointment letter. The respondent No. 1 was required to produce certificate indicating passing of Secondary School Certificate Examination but the. certificate was not produced for a considerable long time. On August 28, 1984, the headmaster served notice of termination on respondent No. 1 and the termination was to be effective from September 1, 1982. The cheque for Rs. 737/- equivalent to salary of one month towards notice fees was also enclosed with the notice of termination. The employee then approached the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Bombay, by filing an appeal.

(3.) IT was urged before the School Tribunal that respondent No. l was appointed in a clear vacancy as a Junior Clerk and the vacancy was a permanent vacancy and, therefore, respondent no. l is entitled to be made permanent at the expiry of two years. The employee further claimed that termination notice was signed by the Headmaster who was not authorised by the management to terminate the service. The appeal was resisted by the petitioner by claiming that the services of respondent No. l were not satisfactory and respondent No. l was temporary and had not completed two years probationary period and, therefore, it was open for the petitioner to terminate the employment. The petitioner pointed out that memos and warnings were given to respondent No. l during his period of service. The Tribunal held that there were sufficient grounds to terminate the services of respondent No. l since respondent No. l was temporary employee and his probationary period had not been completed. The Tribunal further held that the services of the temporary employees can be terminated by giving one calendar month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice. The tribunal further held that the record clearly indicated that the work and behaviour of respondent no. l was not satisfactory. After recording this finding, the Tribunal set aside the order of termination on the narrow ground that the termination letter was signed by the Head-master who was also the Secretary of the School Committee, and it was noticed that the Headmaster was not authorised by the Management to terminate the service of respondent No. 1. The decision of the tribunal is under challenge.