High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner sought back wages for a leave period. The court held that since the petitioner did not work during the claimed period, the relief cannot be granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
dgm 1
26wp692414.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6924 OF 2014
Mr. Nandkishor Babanrao Gaikwad
….Petitioner.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and ors ….Respondents.
Mr. V.V. Ugle for the Petitioner. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Milind Deshmukh for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND C.V. BHADANG, JJ.
DATE : 19.01.2015
P.C.:
By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 to pay full back wages during the leave period from 1.3.2011 to 20.06.2012.
The Petitioner claimed that he was terminated by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from service with effect from 1.3.2011 and, therefore, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed the written statement and stated that they had not terminated the services of the Petitioner and the Petitioner was free to join the services. In view of the
1/2
dgm 2 26wp692414.sxw
aforesaid, the Petitioner went to the school and was permitted to work. The Petitioner has now claimed the salary for the period from 1.3.2011 till the Petitioner resumed the duties on 20.6.2012 with the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 during the pendency of the Appeal.
The relief sought by the Petitioner cannot be granted. Though the Petitioner had claimed the back wages and the arrears of salary, the order of the School Tribunal is silent on the said reliefs. Admittedly, the Petitioner had not worked during the said period and, therefore, the Petitioner cannot claim the salary for that period.
Since there is no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(C.V. BHADANG, J.) (VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can claim back wages for a period when he did not work during the pendency of an appeal?
Whether the writ petition seeking direction to pay back wages has merit?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nandkishor Babanrao Gaikwad
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
Vasanti A. Naik
C.V. Bhadang
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
