Laxmicharitable Trust and Anr. Vs Anuradha Parab and 8 Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION LOD.NO.1373 OF 2008

¶5

Laxmi Charitable Trust.. Petitioner
Versus
Anuradha Parab & Ors... Respondents

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

AND

¶8

Laxmi Charitable Trust & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus

¶9

M.A.Gawade & Ors.

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

AND

¶12

Laxmi Charitable Trust & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus

¶13

Santosh B. Varak and Ors.

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

Mr.Kiran Bapat i/b.Rahul Nerlekar for petitioners
Mr.Phadnis with Mr.Rui Rodrigues
Mr.Sadasivan for respondent Nos. 1 to 6
Mr.G.W.Mattos, AGP for respondent Nos. 7 to 9

¶16

Mr.A.N.Kotangale with Mr.Nagarjuna for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.Lod.No.1374/08
Mr.Sadasivan for respondent Nos.3, 4, 6, 8, 10,
12, 15to 18, 22, 25, 27 to 33, 36 and 38.
Ms.Geeta Shastri, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2
and 4 in W.P.Lod.No.1414 of 2008
Mr.A.N.Kotangale with Mr.A.D.Nagarjuna for
respodnent No.1

¶17

CORAM :S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶18

¶19

DATE:10th June 2008

¶20

P.C.

¶21

.The Management, Laxmi Charitable Trust
and Another has challenged the order of the
University and College Tribunal in Appeals which
were preferred by several appellants. By a
common order rendered in the batch of appeals,
the learned Presiding Officer has held that the
orders of termination of the appellants/concerned
non teaching employees are bad in law and
required to be set aside. The petitioner
Management was directed to reinstate them and
show their names on the muster roll, continue
them in service and pay their wages from the date
of termination till such time as their services
are absorbed in some other colleges.

¶22

2.The issue before the Tribunal, therefore,
was as to whether the employees have been

¶23

¶24

rendered surplus as stated by the Management in
their communication addressed to the employees or
that this is a case of termination under the garb
of the employee being allegedly rendered surplus.
It was not disputed before the Tribunal that
ultimately whether the employees are rendered
surplus or not is an issue which must be decided
by the Directorate of Education and in the
instant case the Joint Director of Higher
Education, Mumbai Region. Thus, the Management
accepts the position in law that until the
competent Authority determined and decided this
issue, it could not have terminated the services
of the original appellants. He was already
before Tribunal but unfortunately the Tribunal
could not issue any directions to him in the
absence of any assistance rendered to it.

¶25

3.When these matters are placed before me,
Mr.Bapat for petitioner management assailed the
order of the Tribunal on the ground that the

¶26

¶27

Tribunal was aware of an application being made
by the Management to the Joint Director
requesting his intervention in the matter of the
employees being rendered surplus and the said
issue be resolved by him. However, the
management was informed earlier that the
employees (16 in number) were rendered surplus
and not 14 as stated by the Management. This was
the communication of 20th June 2007. However, by
a subsequent communication of 20th September
2007, the Joint Director informed the Management
that the earlier communications were being
misinterpreted and rather were issued under some
misconception. The Joint Director is yet to
decide the issue as to whether the subject
employees are surplus or not.

¶28

4.When these state of affairs were pointed
out to me by Mr.Bapat so also by Mr.Kotangale, I
had directed the learned A.G.P. orally to seek
instructions from the Joint Director.

¶29

¶30

Accordingly, the Joint Director of Higher
Education Mr.M.S.Andhale is present in Court and
he has instructed learned A.G.P. to make a
statement that the application of the Management
with regard to the above issue shall be decided
by the Joint Director, after hearing the
Management as well as the concerned employees,
within a period of four months from today. The
Joint Director has further instructed the learned
A.G.P. to state that the time schedule would be
adhered to and in no case extension would be
sought for the purpose of determining the above
issue.

¶31

5.Upon this statement, both the management
and the concerned non teaching staff/employees
agree to appear before the Joint Director on the
date and time fixed by him and make their
submissions so also produce documents in support
of their pleas. Needless therefore to state that
the issue will be decided by the Joint Director

¶32

¶33

and until the decision by him is rendered, the
management shall continue to abide by the orders
and directions of the Tribunal, subject of
course, to its rights to challenge any adverse
order of Joint Director. All contentions, of the
Management as raised before me and denied by the
employees, are kept open for being raised before
the Joint Director.

¶34

6.Needless to further state that the Joint
Director has assured the Court that if he
concludes that the employees are indeed rendered
surplus, then, such of the employees who are
rendered surplus shall be given all benefits
which are provided in law, including, their
absorption in other institutions.

¶35

7.Another request made by the learned
A.G.P. is that the Management should render
assistance to the Joint Director/his
representative/ nominee and the authorised

¶36

¶37

officer of the University so also allow them to
inspect all records and documents at the premises
of the Management. Mr.Bapat, after taking
instructions, makes a statement that the
Management will render all assistance and produce
relevant records for scrutiny and inspection of
the Joint Director, for determination of the
above issue. It is agreed between the management
and the Joint Director so also the University
that the inspection of the documents and records
would be taken at the Management office on 24th
June 2008 at 11.00 a.m.

¶38

8.Mr.Bapat states that as far as pending
wage/salary bills are concerned, they will be
forwarded within two weeks from today. The Joint
Director so also the University to take necessary
steps in accordance with the prevalent Rules so
that all concerned abide by the orders of the
Tribunal insofar as payment of salaries until
decision on the above issue. The Joint Director

¶39

¶40

states that within a period of two weeks from the
date of receipt of wage/salary bills, the
necessary steps would be taken. All petitions
are disposed of in the above terms.

¶41

(S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)

Laxmicharitable Trust and Anr. v. Anuradha Parab and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmicharitable Trust and Anr. v. Anuradha Parab and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhartiya Kamgar Sena Vs M/S. Eastern International Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Vidyalankar Institute of Technology Vs Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Union

M/S. Matra Realty Ltd. Vs the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai

Industrial Development Bank of India Vs O.L.of Bharat Pipes and Fittings Ltd.

Yamuna M. Shinde Vs S.R.A. and Ors. and Ganesh v. Chilveri and Ors.

Malabar Hill Citizen'S Forum and Ors. Vs Uday Anant Gurav and Ors.