Bombay High Court
Shubhangi Ramesh Lokhande vs Smt. Anita Vijay Suryawanshi on 8 May, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:10170
1 20-CP.574-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
20 CONT. PETITION NO. 574 OF 2023
SHUBHANGI RAMESH LOKHANDE
VERSUS
SMT. ANITA VIJAY SURYAWANSHI
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Laxman Vishnu Sangit.
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Ms. Apoorva Songire h/f Mr. V.
P. Latange.
Advocate for respective Respondent : Mr. Sachin S. Tambe h/f
Mr. Santosh S. Jadhavar.
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 08.05.2024
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the respective learned counsels.
2. This contempt petition is filed under Section 10 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
3. By way of this contempt proceeding, the petitioner wants
to execute the order of the learned School Tribunal, Solapur
passed in Appeal No.28 of 2019, dated 25.03.2022. Section 13
of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions
of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short "M.E.P.S. Act 1977")
provides for the penalty to the Management for failure to
comply with the Tribunal's directions. Recently, Division Bench
2 20-CP.574-23.odt
of this Court in the case of Smt. Ahemadi Siddiqui Abdul Majid
Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition
No.2036 of 2022, dated 20.06.2022 has held that the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, cannot be converted into an
Executing Court. Section 13 of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977
adequately takes care of the interest of the litigant, who had
succeeded before the Tribunal under Section 9 of the Act and
an order/judgment has been delivered in his/her favour under
Section 11 of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, has a statutory
remedy of getting the order of this Court to go to Tribunal
executed under Section 13, inasmuch as, the School Tribunal
has awarded punishment to the errant management. Taking
this view, the writ petition stands dismissed.
4. What remedy the successful petitioner has against the
management has been provided under Section 13 and this
question is again before this Court in many matters. This Court
in the case of Mohammad Salam Anamul Haque Vs. S. A.
Azmi; 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 249 and Chandrakant Vs. Sophy Keely;
1987 Mh.L.J. 1012, has dealt with the question whether the
Court should initiate proceedings against the respondent for
contempt. In paragraph No.4, it was observed that the
3 20-CP.574-23.odt
jurisdiction of the High Court for punishing the person for
contempt is a summary jurisdiction and therefore it has to be
exercised with great care and caution and only when its
exercise is necessary for the proper administration of law and
justice. Further in paragraph No.5, it has been observed that
one of the aspects to be looked into by the Court before
initiating action under the Contempt of Courts Act is to find
out whether the petitioner has any other remedy available for
enforcing the order, which he is alleging breach by the
respondent. In paragraph No.8, the following observations
were recorded. "Therefore, the question that arises for
consideration and which is to be examined is whether the
order made by the Tribunal under Section 11 of the Act can be
termed as an executable order made by a Court capable of
being executed under the provisions of the Civil Procedure
Code." In paragraph No.13, it has been observed that the
Tribunal constituted under the Act has all the powers necessary
for enforcing its order and an order made by the School
Tribunal is an order within the meaning of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Therefore, once an order is made in favour of an
employer by the Tribunal, the employee can approach the
Tribunal for execution of that order and then it becomes the
duty of the Tribunal to either execute the order itself or, if it is
4 20-CP.574-23.odt
found necessary, transfer it for execution to another Civil Court
in accordance with the provisions contained in the Code of
Civil Procedure. Further in paragraph No.14, it has been
observed that the order made by the Tribunal in favour of the
petitioner is an executable order and therefore it is open to the
petitioner to approach the Tribunal which passed the order, for
getting that order executed in accordance with the provisions
of the Code of Civil Procedure. The present contempt petition
cannot be entertained for the reasons that have been indicated
above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before
approaching this Court, the petitioner has applied to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate. However, it was rejected. Primarily, the
petitioner has knocked the doors of the wrong Court. In view
of the law laid down in the case of Chandrakant (supra) first
the petitioner has to move an application under Section 13 to
the School Tribunal and then the jurisdiction lies with the
School Tribunal to take an appropriate decision whether
transfer of said application for execution to another Civil Court
is essential. In sum and substance, the law is laid down long
back that a correct remedy to execute the order of the Tribunal
is available to the petitioner under Section 13 of the M.E.P.S.
5 20-CP.574-23.odt
Act, 1977. The petitioner wants to execute the order of the
Tribunal, High Court cannot be converted into an executing
court. Therefore, the contempt petition stands dismissed with
a liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Section
13 of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 to the concerned Tribunal.
6. No order as to costs.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.)
...
vmk/-
