Bombay High Court
Adarsh Shikshan Prasarak Mandal ... vs Shri. Rakesh Sadashiv Tade And ... on 5 March, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 mca167.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 167 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 7168 OF 2017 (D)
(ADARSH SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL & ANR...VS.. RAKESH SADASHIV TADE & ANR.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.O.Ahmed, Advocate for Applicants/Petitioners.
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : MARCH 05, 2021.
Heard.
2. Respondent No.1-employee was working in
petitioner No.2 school as Assistant Teacher. The respondent
No.1-employee had filed appeal before School Tribunal
contending that his services were orally terminated w.e.f. 3 rd
July 2015. The petitioners had filed their reply before the
School Tribunal stating that the claim of the employee that
his services were terminated orally, was not correct and the
employee himself had stopped reporting on duty. In the reply
filed before the School Tribunal it was stated that the
management had issued two notices dated 13 th July 2015 and
28th July 2015 calling upon the employee to report on duty,
still he had not reported on duty. The Tribunal allowed the
appeal filed by the employee by order dated 24 th March 2017.
This order was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition
which is dismissed by order dated 3 rd January 2019, of which
review is sought by the petitioners.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted
that before filing of the writ petition, the respondent No.1-
2 mca167.21.odt
employee was reinstated on 25 th May 2017 and was being
paid regular salary after his reinstatement. According to the
petitioners, the challenge in the writ petition was to the order
passed by the School Tribunal directing the management to
pay back-wages. According to the petitioners, the employee
is not entitled for back-wages as he himself opted to remain
absent and was not attending the duty in spite of the notices
issued by the management to him.
4. The submission made on behalf of the
management is not in consonance with the challenges in the
petition. The petitioners had challenged the entire order
passed by the School Tribunal and had also prayed for stay of
the effect and operation of the order passed by the School
Tribunal. Had the management challenged the order passed
by the School Tribunal only to the extent of grant of back-
wages to the employee, the situation would have been
different.
5. The learned Advocate for the petitioners relied on
the judgment given by this Court in Writ Petition No.7591 of
2019 on 15th January 2020 to contend that the employee who
himself defaults in attending the duty would not be entitled
for back wages.
6. As observed earlier, had the management
restricted its challenge to the grant of back-wages to the
employee, situation would have been different, but the
management has chosen to challenge the entire order passed
by the School Tribunal, which clearly shows that the
management was opposing the reinstatement of the employee
also. Hence, the judgment delivered by this Court in Writ
3 mca167.21.odt
Petition No.7591 of 2019 will not be of any help to the
petitioners.
7. The petitioners have not been able to point out
anything on the basis of which it can be said that any relevant
document or material is not considered by the Court while
deciding the writ petition. It cannot be said that there is any
error apparent on the face of the record, which enables this
Court to exercise the review jurisdiction.
8. Hence, the Miscellaneous Civil Application is
dismissed.
( Z.A.HAQ, J.)
RRaut..
