Venkat Dattatraya Nandvate, Age ... vs Dattatraya Rambhau Ambad, Age 50 ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 315 Bom

Citation : 2002 Latest Caselaw 315 Bom
Judgement Date : 19 March, 2002

Bombay High Court

Venkat Dattatraya Nandvate, Age ... vs Dattatraya Rambhau Ambad, Age 50 ... on 19 March, 2002

Equivalent citations: 2002 (5) BomCR 241, (2002) 3 BOMLR 321, 2002 (95) FLR 304

Author: D Karnik

Bench: D Karnik

JUDGMENT

D.G. Karnik, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, petition taken up for final hearing. Shri D.B. Pawar, learned Advocate appears for respondent No.1 and waives notice. The petitioner craves leave to delete name of the respondent No.2. Request granted.

3. By order dated 2.7.2001, School Tribunal granted stay to the operation of the order passed by the school management removing the respondent No.1 from the post of Supervisor and directed to continue the respondent No.1 to the post of Supervisor till further orders. By a resolution dated 25.7.2001, the management decided to file writ petition in the High Court and obtain stay to the said order of the School Tribunal. Accordingly Writ Petition No. 742 of 2002 was filed challenging the order of the School Tribunal. However, no orders were passed on the said writ petition immediately.

4. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.1 filed an appliction for contempt against the Head Master of the school for disobeying the order dated 2.7.2001. By order dated 4.1.2002, the petitioner Head Master of the school has been held guilty of disobedience and punished to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-.

5. The Head Master was not acting in his personal capacity. The Head Master was guided by the resolution passed by the management to challenge the order of the School Tribunal in the High Court and in fact a writ petition bearing No. 742 of 2002 is filed.

6. Section 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short MEPS Act) provides penalty for disobedience of the orders of the Tribunal. Under section 13 of the MEPS Act, penalty can be imposed on the management. The penalty can not be imposed on an individual person such as the Head Master. The impugned order imposes a penalty of fine individually on the petitioner who is the Head Master. If at all there was disobedience, the remedy of the respondent No.1 was to ask the Tribunal to penalise the management and not the petitioner individually. The order passed by the Tribunal is, therefore, without jurisdiction.

7. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed. Rule is made absolute. No costs.