Allowed

Chairman, Kisan Veer Shaikshanik Krida and Sanskrutik Prathithan, Kavathe and Ors. v. Shri. Rajendra Hanumant Dere and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2012LPA/126/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal was disposed of without examining merits. The bench set aside the Single Judge's partial admission of a writ petition challenging a reinstatement and back wages order. The Rule now applies to the entire petition.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Single Judge's partial admission; Rule for Rule to go to final hearing; reinstatement ordered subject to writ petition outcome.

Chairman, Kisan Veer Shaikshanik Krida and Sanskrutik… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

gopi

lpa-126-12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

¶5

APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.126 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10175 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.182 OF 2012

¶7

Chairman, Kisanveer Shaikshanik Krida and Sanskrutik Prathisthan & Anr. ..Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Shri Rajendra Hanumant Dere & Ors...Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Dilip Bodke for the appellants. Mr. Nitin Kulkarni, for respondent No.1.

¶11

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 22 August 2012.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

This appeal is directed against the order dated 21 March 2012 of the learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting the petition of the appellants-School Management against that part of the order of the School Tribunal by which the School Tribunal has directed the management to reinstate the respondent No.1 who was employed as a Clerk in the school being run by the appellant management.

¶14

Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Clerk by order dated 28 February, 2007 with effect from 1 March 2007. The respondent No.1's services came to be terminated on 23 January 2009. The application filed by the respondent No.1 in the School Tribunal came to be allowed and the Tribunal passed the order of reinstatement with 50%

1/3

gopi 2

lpa-126-12

back wages. The appellant-management has challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No.10175 of 2011 in this Court. By the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge has held that this is a fit case for admitting the writ petition challenging the order of reinstatement, but the writ petition is admitted only in so far as the management has challenged the direction of the Tribunal for payment of 50% back wages to respondent No.1.

¶19

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge could not have rejected the petition in part while finding a prima facie case in the challenge to the order of back wages.

¶20

The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 sought to support the order of the learned Single Judge in so far as the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order of reinstatement.

¶21

We are not inclined to go into the merits of the rival contentions as we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition ought not to have been dismissed in part and admitted in part. The direction for reinstatement and the direction for backwages – both the directions or either of them can be given only after holding the order of termination to be illegal. What should be the appropriate relief to be granted, after deciding the termination to be illegal, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Dismissing the petition of the management in so far as the challenge to the direction for reinstatement is concerned, would foreclose the right of the management to point out all the relevant facts and circumstances leading to termination of the respondent's services and equities of the case.

2/3

lpa-126-12

gopi

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the rival contentions, we set aside the observations made by the learned Single Judge in para 2 of the order dated 21 March 2012. The Rule issued on Writ Petition shall be treated as Rule for the purposes of the entire petition and it will be open to the parties to raise all contentions at the final hearing of the Writ Petition.

¶27

The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶28

In other words the appellant management shall reinstate the respondent No.1 in service, subject to the outcome of the writ petition. As far as the direction of the tribunal for payment of 50% back wages is concerned, the learned Single Judge has already granted interim stay against the implementation of the said direction and the respondent No.1 has not filed any appeal challenging that part of the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, during the pendency of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge there is no stay against the order of the Tribunal for reinstatement, but the direction given by the Tribunal for payment of 50% back wages shall remain stayed. The appellants shall, therefore, accordingly reinstate the respondent No.1 before 31 August 2012. The appellant management shall reinstate respondent No.1 in service subject to the result of the writ petition, if so far not reinstated.

¶29

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶30

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶31

3/3

Chairman, Kisan Veer Shaikshanik Krida and Sanskrutik Prathithan, Kavathe and Ors. v. Shri. Rajendra Hanumant Dere and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chairman, Kisan Veer Shaikshanik Krida and Sanskrutik Prathithan, Kavathe and Ors. v. Shri. Rajendra Hanumant Dere and 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

Shri Satish Shankarrao Paralkar and Anr. Vs Mr. Anil v. Ranadive

Gunvantrai Shivlalgupta Vs Miss. Snehlata Chhotalal Mody and Ors.

Mahendrakumar Prmanand Pal Vs the Municiapl Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 10 Ors. and Harbai Damji Patel

Jsw Energy Limited and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Mahesh Ramachandra Ghone Vs the Telecom District Manager - M/S. BSNL , Sindhudurg

Mahesh Ramachandra Ghone Vs the Telecom District Manager - M/S. BSNL , Sindhudurg