(S.A. Bobde and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.)
Jayant Vasantrao Hiwarkar _________________________ Appellant
v.
Anoop Ganpatrao Bobde & Ors. ____________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 11001 of 2016 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26786/2015], decided on November 18, 2016
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.08.2015 in Writ Petition No. 738 of 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, wherein the order passed by the School Tribunal had been modified.
3. The School Tribunal by its order dated 03.09.2007 had observed that respondent No. 1-herein, namely, Anoop Ganpatrao Bobde had worked for a year but in the circumstances, found it appropriate not to grant relief of reinstatement in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11(2)(e) of the Maharashtra Employees of private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 for short, “the Act”) which reads as under :
“Where it is decided not to reinstate the employee or in any other appropriate case, *[to give to the employee twelve months’ salary (pay and allowances, if any) if he has been in the services of the school for ten years or more and six months salary (Pay and allowances, if any) if he has been in service of the school for less then ten year], by way or compensation, regard being had to loss of employment and possibility of getting or not getting suitable employment thereunder, as it may specify”
4. Presumably, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to pass that order because on the date of the order the appellant had completed about eight years of service.
5. As of today, it is an undisputed position that the appellant has completed 17 years’ of service.
6. The High Court in a Writ Petition filed by the respondent No. 1, however, held that because the School Tribunal held that the appointment of respondent No. 1 was on probation and the same was accepted by the school authorities it had no option but to direct the reinstatement of respondent No. 1. Therefore, the High Court modified the order of the School Tribunal and directed reinstatement of respondent No. 1.
7. Shri Manish Pitale, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-herein rightly pointed out the provisions of Section 11(2)(e) of the Act as extracted above. We find that the afore-mentioned provision clearly confers a power upon the School Tribunal to mould the relief and grant a relief which is alternative to reinstatement, as the School Tribunal considers appropriate. The School Tribunal is not bound in all circumstances to direct reinstatement.
8. In the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the order of the School Tribunal, particularly since there are no observations which indicate that the order of the School Tribunal was otherwise untenable. The School Tribunal had merely moulded relief in exercise of its powers to do so under Section 11(2)(e) of the Act.
9. In the circumstances, we set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court; upheld the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal.
10. The civil appeal is allowed accordingly.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26786/2015
Jayant Vasantrao Hiwarkar ____________________________ Petitioner
v.
Anoop Ganpatrao Bobde & Ors _____________________ Respondent(s)
Date : 18/11/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before S.A. Bobde and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Manish Pitale, Adv.
Mr. Wasi Haider, Adv.
Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Kishor Lambat, Adv.
Ms. Aditi Deshpande, Adv.
M/s. Lambat & Associates
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
11. Leave granted.
12. The civil appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
———
