Dismissed

Balasaheb Bhimaji Jondhale v. Amrutvahini Sheti and Shik. Vikas Sans.and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jul 2014WP/1225/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging the School Tribunal's order of retrenchment against two instructors due to course closure were dismissed. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that courses closed for want of students and found no illegality in the termination or the refusal of common seniority.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Balasaheb Bhimaji Jondhale Vs Amrutvahini Sheti and Shik… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

W.P.No.1225/2001

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1225 OF 2001

¶5

Balasaheb s/o Bhimrao Jondhale, Age 30 years, Occu. Nil., R/o C/o Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, Khare Building, Rangar Galli, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Amrutvahini Sheti and Shikshan Vikas Sanstha, Amrutnagar, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar (Through its Secretary, address as above)

¶8

Hon.Secretary, Amrutvahini Sheti and Shikshan Vikas Sanstha, Amrutnagar, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar

¶9

Amrutvahini I.T.I. Institute, Amrutnagar, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar

¶10

The Principal, A.I.T.I., Amrutnagar, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar

¶11

The Dy.Director of Vocational and Training Institute, Head Office, Nashik.

¶12

State of Maharashtra ..Respondents - WITH -

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO.4553 OF 2000

¶14

Ramdas s/o Raghunath Kumbhar, Age 35 years, Occu.Nil, R/o C/o Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, Khare Building, Rangar Galli, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar

..Petitioner

W.P.No.1225/2001

Versus

Amrutvahini Sheti and Shikshan Vikas Sanstha, Amrutnagar, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar (Through its Secretary, address as above)

¶20

Hon.Secretary, Amrutvahini Sheti and Shikshan Vikas Sanstha, Amrutnagar, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar

¶21

Amrutvahini I.T.I. Institute, Amrutnagar, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar

¶22

The Principal, A.I.T.I., Amrutnagar, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar

¶23

The Dy.Director of Vocational and Training Institute, Head Office, Nashik.

¶24

State of Maharashtra ..Respondents

¶25

Mr L.V.Sangit, Advocate h/f Mr V.J.Dixit, Senior Counsel for petitioners

¶26

Mr R.L.Kute, Advocate h/f Mr R.N.Dhorde, Senior Counsel for respondents 1 to 3

¶27

Mr D.V.Tele A.G.P. for respondent No.5 and 6 Respondents No.4 served

¶28

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶29

DATE : 24th July 2014

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

Both these petitions take an exception to the order passed by

¶32

Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune Region, Solapur on 13^th

¶33

W.P.No.1225/2001

¶34

¶35

January 2000, in Appeal No.7/1997 and Appeal No.8/1997 wherein the retrenchment on the ground of closure of the course was questioned.

¶36

In Writ Petition No.1225 of 2001, the petitioner was appointed as Paining Instructor in the I.T.I. whereas in Writ Petition No.4553 of 2000, the petitioner was appointed as Draftsman Mechanical Instructor.

¶37

Petitioners claim that they remained in the employment of respondent – Management from 1990 till 1995. According to petitioners, their services came to be retrenched w.e.f. 31^st December 1996 which prompted them to take recourse to an appeal before the School Tribunal. According to learned Counsel for the petitioners the Tribunal, before whom the order of retrenchment was challenged, has failed to consider their case in right perspective, as the Tribunal has dismissed their appeals. He submits that the claim that the respondent – Management is running number of other institutions wherein the persons with similar qualification are absorbed or could have been accommodated, is rejected for incorrect reasons. He submits that the reasons cited for the closure of the courses, are also incorrect as according to petitioner even today, the respondent – Management is running I.T.I. Courses, particularly from the date the petitioners were appointed.

¶38

W.P.No.1225/2001

¶39

¶40

According to petitioners, on the above referred two grounds, the petitions are liable to be allowed by quashing order of the Tribunal.

¶41

While countering the above referred submissions, learned Counsel for respondent – Management has invited my attention to the observations made by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal in the common judgment dated 13^th January 2000. He submits that initially, services of the petitioners were sought to be terminated simplicitor, however, having noticed that the petitioners were in employment for more than five years and the service conditions under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act requires a procedure to be followed, after taking permission from the Director of Vocational Education and Training and after serving the notice on the petitioners, their services came to be retrenched. He submits that the courses in question which were operated by the respondent – Management at Amrutnagar qua the Painting trade and the Mechanical Draftsman trade were closed down for want of students. He submits that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the fact and the services of the petitioners were rightly terminated. He further submits that the question of common seniority qua the similarly placed employees in other institutions managed by the respondent, is also dealt with by the Tribunal. He has invited my attention to the considerations which were weighed before the Tribunal.

¶42

W.P.No.1225/2001

¶43

¶44

Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the judgment impugned dated 13^th January 2000, it is noticed that the Tribunal, in the light of pleadings raised before it has framed the issues. The said issues are as under :

¶45

“1. Whether retrenchment order issued by respondent No.1 dated 31.12.1996 retrenching appellants is legal ?

¶46

2. Are appellants entitled to reinstate in the service with back wages ?”

¶47

The Tribunal while dealing with the issues, has taken into account the communication dated 4^th July 1995 issued by the respondent to the Director of Vocational Education and Training Mumbai seeking permission to close the courses in question. The Tribunal has also taken into account the procedure followed by respondent No.1 – Management while closing down the courses. The Tribunal has taken into account the payment of three months' salary in view of compensation/notice period to the present petitioners. The fact remains that the closure of the courses for want of students was rightly appreciated and established before the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the termination of services of the petitioners, on that count does not call for interference.

¶48

W.P.No.1225/2001

¶49

¶50

The next contention of the petitioners that there could have been common seniority list of the employees who are similarly placed like that of the present petitioners. Employees whose services in past were considered for interchangeability, ought to have been ordered to be extended to the case of petitioner. The Tribunal, while dealing with the said issue has noticed that the employees like present petitioners' services are governed by separate set of rules whereas the employees of Engineering college or otherwise, the rules governing the services are altogether different. Just because in exceptional case the Management committed illegality of granting interchangeability of the staff does not mean that the petitioners could also be covered under the said practice, even though the same is not recognised in any statute. Petitioners failed to demonstrate any such right before this Court.

¶51

In my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly considered the said contention of the petitioners.

¶52

The contention of the petitioners that the respondent – Management as is still operating the I.T.I. Courses and the services of the petitioners could have been accommodated in the said courses. Though this issue was not canvassed before the Tribunal, however, sought to be canvassed before this Court by filing a rejoinder. The said submissions are opposed by respondent –

¶53

W.P.No.1225/2001

¶54

¶55

Management by filing reply. The respondent – Management pointed out that the trades in which the present petitioners were appointed, are not operated by them in the I.T.I. Units which are managed by the respondent at Talegaon and Sakur.

¶56

In view of above, the said contention of the petitioners that their services could have been accommodated/absorbed in other I.T.I.s, is liable to be rejected.

¶57

Having regard to the above observations, in my opinion, no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal is noticed. As such, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petitions are dismissed with no orders as to costs.

¶58

( N.W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶59

(vvr/1225.01wp)

Balasaheb Bhimaji Jondhale v. Amrutvahini Sheti and Shik. Vikas Sans.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasaheb Bhimaji Jondhale v. Amrutvahini Sheti and Shik. Vikas Sans.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kashibai Hari and Others. Vs Shankarlal Jamanalal Dhoot and Others.

Shankar Kesu Vairal and Others Vs Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth

Chandrabhaga Machindra Dudhade, L.Rs. Manchindra and Others Vs Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth

Jaising Kishanrao Bhadre Vs Divisional Controller M.S.R.T.C. Ltd. Beed

Divisional Controller M.S.R.T.C Beed Divn.Beed Vs Jaisingh Kishanrao Bhadre

Shirishkumar Mukundrao Deo Vs Ashwinikumar Mukundrao Deo and Another