Bombay High Court
Navin Osmanabad Zilla Balvikas ... vs Pramod Trimbakrao Pawar And ... on 6 October, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 903.wp.4394.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4394 OF 2016
1 Navin Osmanabad Zilla Balvikas
Samity, Bank Colony, Osamanbad.
Taluka and District Osmanabad.
Through its Secretary.
2 Saraswati High School,
Bank Colony, Osmanabad,
Taluka and District Osmanabad.
Through its Headmaster.
ig ...PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1 Pramod Trimbakrao Pawar,
Age : 46 years, Occupation : Nil,
R/o Behind Naigaonkar Complex,
Samtanagar, Osmanabad,
Taluka and District Osmanabad.
2 The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Shri S.C.Swami h/f Shri Gunale V.D.
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Shri S.S.Jadhavar.
AGP for Respondent 2 : Shri P.N.Kutti.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 06th October, 2016
Oral Judgment :
*2* 903.wp.4394.16
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2 The Petitioners/ Management is aggrieved by the judgment
dated 27.11.2015 by which the School Tribunal has allowed Appeal
No.66/2014 filed by Respondent No.1/ Employee. His termination dated
19.06.2013 is set aside and he has been granted reinstatement with
continuity of service, but without back wages.
3 The Petitioners are before this Court for a limited purpose.
The contention is that the impugned judgment is an ex-parte judgment.
There is no dispute on this count since though the Petitioners/
Management caused an appearance through an Advocate, the Written
Statement was not filed, inasmuch as they did not effectively participate in
the proceedings before the School Tribunal.
4 Shri Jadhavar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1/
Employee/ original Appellant, points out that there was delay in filing of
his appeal. The application for condonation of delay was filed. The
Petitioners/ Management appeared in the said proceedings, but did not
choose to file their Say to the said application. Eventually, the application
was allowed and by condoning the delay, the appeal was registered. He
*3* 903.wp.4394.16
points out that the Petitioner/ Management has not challenged the order
of condonation of delay.
5 I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates
and have gone through the petition paper book with their assistance.
6 The Roznama of the School Tribunal has been produced on
record. After registering the appeal on 21.08.2014, the matter was
adjourned to enable the Petitioner/ Management to file their reply. The
matter was adjourned on 26.09.2014 due to holiday and again on
20.11.2014 on the request of the Petitioner/ Management. An
adjournment for filing the Vakilpatra was sought by the Petitioner on
18.12.2014. Thereafter, adjournments for filing the Say to the appeal were
sought by the Petitioner/ Management on 22.01.2015, 29.01.2015,
26.03.2015, 30.04.2015, 23.07.2015, 20.08.2015, 03.09.2015,
01.10.2015 and 19.11.2015.
7 On 19.11.2015, the School Tribunal heard the Appellant's
Advocate's final oral submissions on the appeal. Even thereafter, the
matter was adjourned on two occasions on 23.11.2015 and 26.11.2015.
Neither did the Petitioners tender their Written Statement nor did they
effectively participate in the proceedings. It is in this backdrop that the
*4* 903.wp.4394.16
impugned judgment was delivered on 27.11.2015.
8 There can be no dispute that the impugned judgment has
been delivered after hearing the learned Advocate for Respondent No.1/
Employee alone due to the conduct of the Petitioners/ Management
recorded above. Since the appeal was pending adjudication for more than
a year, I do not find that an irreparable loss, manifest inconvenience or
grave hardship would be caused to Respondent No.1/ Employee if the
matter is remitted to the School Tribunal. However, it cannot be ignored
that Respondent No.1/ Employee is without any source of income and is
unable to feed his family ever since his termination. His miseries cannot
be ignored, which can be compensated by imposing costs on the
Petitioners/ Management because the Petitioners/ Management's conduct
has led to this situation.
9 In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed.
The impugned judgment dated 27.11.2015 is set aside and Appeal
No.66/2014 is remitted to the School Tribunal, Pune Region at Solapur
only on the condition that the Petitioners/ Management shall deposit an
amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) before the School
Tribunal on or before 21st October, 2016.
*5* 903.wp.4394.16
10 Respondent No.1/ Appellant is permitted to withdraw the
said amount of Rs.50,000/- without conditions from the School Tribunal.
A request for extension of time to deposit the amount shall not be
entertained.
11 The litigating sides shall appear before the School Tribunal on
21.10.2016. The Petitioners/ Management shall file their Written
Statement along with all such documents on which they desire to place
reliance, on 21.10.2016. Thereafter, the School Tribunal shall decide the
appeal in accordance with the procedure and on it's own merits. All
contentions of the litigating sides are kept open.
12 Needless to state, if the Petitioners fail to deposit the above
stated amount, this order shall stand recalled and the impugned judgment
of the School Tribunal dated 27.11.2015 shall stand restored and Appeal
No.66/2014 shall then stand disposed of in terms of the impugned
judgment.
13 Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
