Bombay High Court
Dilip Kapoor , President Suman ... vs Bhagat Mahesh Bhaga And Ors on 15 October, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:44913
901.WP.11161.2022.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11161 OF 2022
Dilip Kapoor, President, Suman Educational
Trust and Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
Bhagat Mahesh Bhaga and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Mahesh Vijay Rawool, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. C.R. Sadasivan, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Ms. P.J. Gavhane, AGP for Respondent - State.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
RESERVED ON : JULY 30, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : OCTOBER 15, 2025.
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Mr. Rawool, learned Advocate for Petitioners, Mr.
Sadasivan, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Ms. Gavhane,
learned AGP for Respondent - State.
2. The present Writ Petition assails judgment and order dated
22.06.2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, Mumbai University and
College Tribunal, Mumbai in Contempt Application No.05 of 2019
whereby Contempt Application filed by Respondent No.1 was partly
allowed.
3. The facts germane to the present case are as follows:-
3.1. On 04.08.2014, Respondent No.1 - employee was appointed
as Workshop Welder (Instructor) in Petitioner No.3 - Institute. On
1 of 14
901.WP.11161.2022.doc
account of alleged unsatisfactory work and misconduct Petitioners
issued show-cause notices dated 11.09.2015 and 22.03.2018.
Thereafter, by letter dated 05.05.2018 Respondent No.1's services
were terminated and all dues payable to him as on that date were paid
by Petitioners.
3.2. Being aggrieved by the termination, Respondent No.1
preferred Appeal No.19 of 2018 before the Mumbai University and
College Tribunal, Mumbai. By judgment dated 15.03.2019, Tribunal
allowed the Appeal and directed Respondent No.1 to be reinstated to
the same post without any break in service alongwith back-wages and
costs of Rs.20,000/-.
3.3. It is Petitioners' case that Respondent No.1's services were
unsatisfactory and efforts were made to settle the dispute. Despite such
attempts, Respondent No.1 filed Contempt Application No.02 of 2019
alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 15.03.2019.
In the contempt proceedings Petitioners paid Rs.97,693/- towards
back-wages and Rs.20,000/- towards costs as directed by order dated
15.03.2019. By order dated 11.07.2019, Contempt Application No.02
of 2019 was disposed of with directions to comply with the order dated
15.03.2019.
3.4. It is Petitioners' case that on 12.07.2019, Respondent No.1
reported for duty, submitted his reporting letter and signed the muster
2 of 14
901.WP.11161.2022.doc
roll, however he refused to perform the duties assigned to him and
declined to attend Diploma College duty. Thereafter, Petitioner No.2
addressed a letter dated 13.07.2019 to Respondent No.1 and
addressed letters and emails calling upon him to join duties however
he did not resume despite such communications. All these facts are
vehemently denied by Respondent No.1
3.5. Respondent No.1 subsequently filed 2nd Contempt
Application No.05 of 2019 alleging continued non-compliance with
Tribunal's order dated 15.03.2019, wherein Tribunal once again
directed Petitioners to issue a letter of reinstatement dated 06.04.2022,
directing Respondent No.1 to join duty from 07.04.2022. Pursuant
thereto, Respondent No.1 joined duty and was assigned industrial
visits for two days. In the interregnum, Petitioners informed him about
joining formalities to be completed, but according to Petitioner
Respondent No.1 refused to cooperate and sign the documents which
further led to a dispute between Petitioners and Respondent No.1 due
to which Petitioners served show-cause notice dated 07.04.2022,
calling upon Respondent No.1 to show cause why disciplinary action
should not be initiated against him. Respondent No.1 failed to remain
present for hearing on 08.04.2022 and did not undertake the industrial
visit duty assigned to him and continued to remain absent thereafter.
3 of 14
901.WP.11161.2022.doc
3.6. In Contempt Application No.05 of 2019, Respondent No.1
filed Affidavit dated 23.04.2022 recording the reinstatement and the
show-cause notice proceedings dated 07.04.2022. He also filed
Application for initiation of enquiry under Section 340 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 against Petitioners. Petitioners filed their
reply to the Affidavit and to the said application.
3.7. By order dated 22.06.2022, the Tribunal partly allowed
Contempt Application No.05 of 2019 and directed Petitioners to
reinstate Respondent No.1 in the Engineering College as per the order
dated 15.03.2019; further directed payment of 50% of his salary for
the period of 13.07.2019 to 06.04.2022 alongwith with costs of
Rs.10,000/- and imposed a default penalty of Rs.500/- per day in the
event of non-compliance beyond 15 days to continue until the
contravention persisted.
3.8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated
22.06.2022, Petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. On 09.07.2025,
Petitioners deposited the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- computed at the
rate of Rs.500/- per day for non-compliance of the order dated
22.06.2022.
4. Mr. Rawool, learned Advocate for Petitioners would submit
that the Tribunal erred in holding that Petitioners failed to comply with
the order by not allowing Respondent No.1 to join Degree College
4 of 14
901.WP.11161.2022.doc
duty. He would submit that in fact Petitioners reinstated him on
12.07.2019 in the Degree College as per Tribunal's order however
Respondent No.1 failed to resume duty due to which letters and email
dated 13.07.2019, 15.07.2019 and 16.07.2019 were issued which
directed Respondent No.1 to work in the second shift and in both
sections Degree College and Diploma College as per requirement of the
Institute. He would submit that all letters were issued by the Degree
College Principal and hence there was no question of his appointment
in the Polytechnic College. He would submit that despite
reinstatement, Respondent No.1 refused to work in the second shift
and remained absent and took undue benefit of his own wrong.
4.1. He would submit that Tribunal failed to consider that
Respondent No.1 earlier accepted letter dated 30.12.2016 which
required him to follow Diploma timings in Appeal No.19 of 2018. He
would submit that Petitioners also attempted to show that since
beginning Respondent No.1 was signing the muster of Diploma staff
but due to lapse in earlier pleadings this stand could not be raised in
time and Respondent No.1 is now exploiting the said lacuna and is
claiming his appointment in the Degree College Section. He would
submit that Petitioners reinstated him in the Degree College but he was
simultaneously also liable to perform Diploma College duties as per
requirement and as per order of Tribunal Petitioners could be allotted
both Degree and Diploma College work.
5 of 14
901.WP.11161.2022.doc
4.2. He would submit that Respondent No.1 approached the
Tribunal with unclean hands, Respondent No.1 made illegal demands
and pressurised the Petitioners. He would submit that Tribunal
wrongly granted backwages to him from 12.07.2019 to 06.04.2022. He
would submit that Tribunal ignored the settled principles of law and
erred in rewarding Respondent No.1's absence by granting 50%
compensation. He would submit that Tribunal decided disputed issues
without granting Petitioners a proper opportunity of hearing.
4.3. He would submit that Respondent No.1's appointment is in
violation of law and illegal and he cannot claim monetary benefit for
the period he himself failed and refused to work. Hence, he would
submit that the impugned judgment and order is perverse, contrary to
the principles of natural justice hence deserves to be quashed and set
aside and present Petition be allowed.
5. PER CONTRA, Mr. Sadasivan, learned Advocate for
Respondent No.1 in support of the impugned order would submit that
the facts narrated by Petitioners are disputed. He would submit that on
04.08.2014, Respondent No.1 was appointed as Workshop Instructor
in the Degree Section of the Mechanical Engineering Department of
Petitioner No.3 - College affiliated to the University of Mumbai.
5.1. He would submit that on 06.05.2016 and 09.03.2018,
Petitioners themselves issued certificates certifying that he was
6 of 14
901.WP.11161.2022.doc
employed in the Degree Section and throughout his service period he
was issued salary slips and assigned exam duty orders which clearly
establish and confirm his employment in the Degree College. He would
submit that on 05.05.2018, Petitioners terminated his services without
any justifiable cause.
5.2. He would submit that by order dated 15.03.2019 passed by
the College Tribunal in Appeal No.19 of 2018 Respondent No.1's
Appeal was allowed and Petitioners were directed to reinstate him
with continuity of service, back wages, and he was awarded costs of
Rs.20,000/-.
5.3. He would submit that Petitioners failed to comply with
order dated 15.03.2019 due to which Respondent No.1 was compelled
to file Contempt Application No.2 of 2019, wherein Petitioners
tendered unconditional apology and gave undertaking to reinstate him
and also paid Rs.97,693/- to him towards backwages along with costs
of Rs.20,000/- whereupon proceedings were disposed of on
11.07.2019.
5.4. He would submit that despite the said undertaking,
Petitioners did not reinstate him in the Degree Section. He would
submit that Respondent No.1 was not allowed to enter the college
premises due to which he issued two letters dated 12.07.2019 and
13.07.2019 appended at page No.270 onwards. He would submit that
7 of 14
901.WP.11161.2022.doc
Petitioners took a false stand that he was an employee of the
Polytechnic Section which issue or ground was never raised during the
Appeal.
5.5. He would submit that due to consistent non-compliance by
Petitioners, 2nd Contempt Application No.5 of 2019 was filed by
Respondent No.1 wherein by order dated 22.06.2022, Tribunal
directed Petitioners to reinstate Respondent No.1 in the Engineering
College and pay 50% salary from 13.07.2019 till 06.04.2022 with
further costs of Rs.10,000/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs.500/- per
day in case of default. He would submit that Petitioners once again
failed to comply with the said order and directions of the Tribunal.
5.6. He would submit that thereafter Petitioners approached this
Court to challenge order dated 22.06.2022. However it is pertinent to
note that order dated 15.03.2019 remained unchallenged till this date.
He would submit that Petitioners filed Affidavit dated 10.10.2022
whereby it gave an undertaking that Respondent No.1 would be
reinstated in accordance with the Tribunal's order dated 15.03.2019.
5.7. He would submit that this Court (Coram: N.J. Jamadar, J.)
by order dated 27.03.2024 considered the Affidavit filed by Petitioners
on 10.10.2022 and directed Respondent No.1 to join duty from
02.05.2023.
8 of 14
901.WP.11161.2022.doc
5.8. He would submit that on 02.05.2023, Petitioners issued
reinstatement order but contrary to its undertaking and showed his
appointment in the Polytechnic Section instead of the Degree College
where he was appointed and compelled him to sit in the Principal's
office for the entire day and thereafter assigned him duties to visit
industries outside the College. He would submit that this conduct of
Petitioners was in gross violation of judicial orders and their own
undertaking given to avoid contempt action.
5.9. He would submit that fabricated muster rolls and records
produced by Petitioners to support their false and belated claim of
Respondent No.1's appointment in the Polytechnic Section amounts to
perjury and fraud upon the Court. He would submit that conduct of
Petitioners demonstrates a pattern of defiance and abuse of process of
law. He would submit that this ground was never taken earlier during
the Appeal and it is a concocted ground taken up for the first time.
5.10. He would submit that in view of the continued non-
compliance of binding judicial orders by Petitioners and financial
hardship faced by Respondent No.1 for a continuous period of 5 years
he would urge the Court to uphold the impugned order and dismiss the
Petition in the interest of justice.
9 of 14
901.WP.11161.2022.doc
6. I have heard Mr. Rawool, learned Advocate for Petitioners,
Mr. Sadasivan, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Ms.
Gavhane, learned AGP for Respondent - State and with their able
assistance perused the record of the case. Submissions made by the
learned Advocates at the bar have received due consideration of the
Court.
7. At the outset, it is seen that the initial order dated
15.03.2019 passed by the College Tribunal in Appeal No.19 of 2018 set
aside the termination of Respondent No.1 and directed his
reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and costs of
Rs.20,000/-. However it is surprising that the said order was never
challenged by Petitioners and has now therefore it has attained finality.
Despite the binding nature of the said order, Petitioners failed to
comply with it till date.
8. It is seen that in Contempt Application No.2 of 2019,
Petitioners tendered an unconditional apology and gave an
undertaking to reinstate Respondent No.1 and also made payment
towards backwages and costs as directed in order dated 15.03.2019.
The said application was disposed of on 11.07.2019 with specific
directions for reinstatement. However Petitioners failed to reinstate
Respondent No.1 in the Degree Section of the College where he was
appointed.
10 of 14
901.WP.11161.2022.doc
9. It is further seen that in Contempt Application No.5 of 2019,
Tribunal by judgment dated 22.06.2022 once again directed
Petitioners to reinstate Respondent No.1 in the Engineering College
alongwith payment of 50% salary for the period from 13.07.2019 to
06.04.2022 and further costs of Rs.10,000/- and also imposed a
penalty of Rs.500/- per day in default. It is seen that Petitioners have
not complied with this order as well and have challenged it. According
to Petitioners they have reinstated Respondent No.1 but the
reinstatement is in the Polytechnic Section and not the Degree College.
This ground of his appointment in Polytechnic College or the muster
rolls that he had signed earlier was never pleaded or taken by the
College at the time of Appeal. Hence it cannot be countenanced at this
stage especially when the order dated 15.03.2019 has become
absolute.
10. It is seen that Petitioners filed Affidavit in form of
undertaking dated 10.10.2022 before this Court (Coram: N.J. Jamadar,
J.) to reinstate Respondent No.1 in accordance with the Tribunal's
order dated 15.03.2019. By order dated 27.03.2023, this Court
recorded the undertaking and directed reinstatement of Respondent
No.1 from 02.05.2023. However, Petitioners are in breach of their own
undertaking as reinstatement letter dated 02.05.2023 shows
Respondent No.1's appointment and posting in the Polytechnic Section
instead of the Degree Section which is contrary to the orders of the
11 of 14
901.WP.11161.2022.doc
Tribunal and this Court.
11. It is evident from the record that all judicial orders passed till
date are against the Petitioners but none of them have been complied
with in their true letter and spirit. It is seen that two undertakings
given before the Tribunal and this Court are clearly dishonoured by
Petitioners. The belated plea that Respondent No.1 was a Polytechnic
employee is a clear afterthought which was never raised during the
proceedings in Appeal No.19 of 2018 and is contrary to the documents
placed on record. It is thus clear that Petitioners have willfully and
deliberately defied the binding judicial orders passed by the Tribunal
and this Court. Hence, Petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs
whatsoever in such circumstances. Petition therefore fails.
12. In view of the above, observations and findings, the
impugned judgment and order dated 22.06.2022 passed by the
University and College Tribunal in Contempt Application No.05 of
2019 stands upheld.
13. As on today, Petitioners are liable to pay an amount of
Rs.6,95,750/- comprising arrears of 50% salary alongwith penalty
imposed under order dated 22.06.2022 and costs of Rs.10,000/- as
computed in the statement of Respondent No.1 and further payment as
per above computation. By order dated 09.07.2025, this Court directed
Petitioners to deposit amount Rs.2,00,000/- which was deposited by
12 of 14
901.WP.11161.2022.doc
them to show their bonafides.
14. Registry is directed to release the said amount in favour of
Respondent No.1 - employee within a period of four weeks from
today. Further, Petitioners are directed to pay the balance amount to
Respondent No.1 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of
uploading of this judgment. If the said amount is not paid as directed,
it shall attract interest at the rate of 12% per annum after the due date
of four (4) weeks.
15. It is directed by the Court that Respondent No.1 - employee
shall be reinstated by Petitioners in the Degree College Section in
accordance with the order dated 15.03.2019 alongwith continuity in
service and all other consequential benefits as awarded by the orders
of the Tribunal.
16. It is further clarified that his appointment shall be in the
Degree College (Engineering Section) of Petitioner No.3 - Institute and
not in the Polytechnic Section forthwith.
17. Writ Petition is dismissed and disposed of in the above terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
18. After the aforesaid order is pronounced in open Court, Ms.
Shah, Advocate holding for on behalf of Mr. Rawool, Advocate for
Petitioners would persuade the Court to stay the present Judgment to
13 of 14
901.WP.11161.2022.doc
test its validity and legality in the Supreme Court. I have considered
her request for stay but in view of the gross facts and circumstances in
the present case which have been enumerated in the aforesaid
Judgment, I am not inclined to accept the request for stay.
19. Hence, request made for stay is declined by the Court.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2025.10.15
16:14:52 +0530
14 of 14
