Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The findings of the Tribunal on the issue Nos. (1) and (2) were affirmative.

The Tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal partly by setting aside the termination order and further directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent No.2 with continuity in service and 50 per cent of back wages within stipulated period of one month.

5. Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that the Tribunal misdirected itself in appreciation of the grounds raised by the appellant. It is further the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.2 in appeal took a stand that respondent No.2/appellant was discharging her duties diligently and initially the wife of respondent No.2-Secretary who used to ask the appellant/respondent No.2 to do household work and as a part of courtesy, the appellant/respondent No.2 initially was obliging the wife of respondent No.2-Secretary by following her direction. Subsequently, when she refused to oblige the wife of respondent No.2, as a revengeful act, the respondent/appellant was subjected to termination. It was submitted in the appeal that as per the provisions of Rule 20 of the Appendix-16 of the Ashram Schools Code, the services of the respondent 5 wp6991.15 No.2/appellant could not have been terminated even though she was in the probation period without holding any enquiry. It was submitted in the appeal by raising the ground that as no enquiry was conducted, there was no material to show that the respondent No.2/appellant was guilty of indulging in serious charges levelled against her. It was also submitted in the appeal that whatsoever allegations about failure of the duties levelled against the respondent No.2/appellant, those were the duties of Madatnis or Attendant and not of the appellant who was appointed as a Cook.

7. Per contra, Smt. Raskar, the learned Counsel for respondent No.2 supports the order impugned in the petition. It is the submission of Smt. Raskar, the learned Counsel that the respondent No.2 was appointed in the year 2008 for a temporary period of two years and was under

probation, attained the status of permanent employee when the order of termination was passed. She further submits that the notice dated 31.08.2009 referring to failure of duties in general and more particularly of clauses 1 to 11 of Section 5.8 of the Ashram Schools Code, nowhere relate to any duty of respondent No.2/appellant as a Cook. She also submits that these are the duties assigned to the Madatnis or Kamathi and as per clause 20 of Chapter 16, the services of respondent No.2 could not have been terminated by issuing one month's notice. It is the submission of Smt. Raskar that as per the service conditions of Chapter 16 and clause 20, the procedure for issuance of one month's notice for termination of services is applicable to the temporary employees other than those employees who are working under the probation period.

10. Though Smt. Raskar, the learned Counsel for respondent No.2 makes an attempt to draw support by referring certain provisions of Ashram Schools Code, Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the said Code is merely a compilation of administrative order. Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel refers to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Suryakant Sheshrao Panchal .v. Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jati, Bhatakya Jamati Aadarsh Prasarak Mandal and others (reported in 2002(3) Mh.L.J., 659).