Jijamata Shikshan Prasarak ... vs Bharat S/O. Shiamraoji Rokade And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 327 Bom

                                                                1                               28-wp-76-23.odt


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 76/2023

                          Jijamata Shikhshan Prasarak Mandal
                                          Vs.
                        Bharat s/o Shiamraoji Rokade and others

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                           Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders

                                  Mr. S.D. Abhyankar, Adv. for the Petitioner
                                  Ms. T.H. Khan, AGP for Respondent / State



                                  CORAM:        AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 9th JANUARY, 2023

The appeal under Section 9 of the The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) has been allowed by the learned School Tribunal on the ground that the nominee of the employee was not permitted to be a Member of the Enquiry Committee under Rule 36 of the MEPS Rules on the guise, that the participation of the nominee would require consent of the Institution in which such nominee was employed. The impugned judgment has been passed only on this ground that there is no requirement of law seeking the consent of the Institution where the nominee was employee for permitting him to be the member of the Enquiry Committee. The resultant enquiry, therefore went 2 28-wp-76-23.odt

ahead with only two members in the Enquiry Committee, one nominated by the employer / petitioner and the other national Awardee member. Such composition of the Committee is contrary to the Rule 36 of the MEPS Rules. The participation of the nominee of the employee in the Enquiry Committee is a necessary requirement. Once such person has been nominated to be his representative on the Enquiry Committee the insistence of the Management therefore, for a NOC from the Institution where the representative of the respondent - employee where he was employed is clearly not jsutificable.

2. Mr. S.D. Abhyankar, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any provision, either in the statute or the Rules, indicating such a requirement. It is thus apparent because of such an insistence, the composition of the Enquiry Committee stands vitiated, it being contrary to the mandate of Section 36 of the MEPS Rules, where the nominee of the employee has not been permitted to participate in the Enquiry Committee on account of such unwarranted insistence by the Management as indicated above. That being the position, since the appeal has been allowed only on this ground, considering the language of Section 36 (1)(2)(a)(ii) of the MEPS Rules, 1981, I am not 3 28-wp-76-23.odt

inclined to interfere in the impugned order.

3. Needless to mention, that an enquiry, by a legally constituted Committee where the participation of the representative of the employee is manifest and not prohibited, would be permissible if so permitted under the Statute and Rules.

4. The petition is therefore, dismissed, and the Management, shall be liable to reinstate the respondent and pay the backwages. No costs.

JUDGE

MP Deshpande

Digitally signed by:MILIND P DESHPANDE Signing Date:10.01.2023 10:43