Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Mr.Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that respondent no.6 had voluntarily given resignation of his post. After over thirteen years of submitting the resignation, respondent no.6 raked up the issue. The management of the petitioner - school filled up the vacancy way back in 2005 itself. The incumbent appointed in place of respondent no.6 has been continued in service on satisfactory completion of probationary period. The State of Maharashtra has passed Ashram School Code for secondary and higher secondary school for V.J.N.T., O.B.C. and S.B.C. As per Clause 2.5 of the Ashram School Code, such schools and its staff, teaching and non-teaching, are governed by the Maharashtra 4 wp.6044-2020 Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 and Rules 1981. Respondent no.6 has, therefore, a remedy of appeal before the School Tribunal. Respondent no.4 - Deputy Commissioner of Labour did not have jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Learned Counsel, therefore, urged for allowing the petition.

3. .....

8. In view of the above, the petitioner - school cannot be heard on the question of delay. If respondent no.6 succeeds before the appropriate forum, delay would be considered for refusing to grant him back wages.

9. Admittedly, the State of Maharashtra has issued Ashram School Code for secondary and higher secondary Ashram schools for V.J.N.T., O.B.C. and S.B.C. As per clause 2.5 of said code, the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Ashram schools are directed to be governed by Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 and Rules 1981. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of 7 wp.6044-2020 Suryakant Sheshrao Panchal Vs. Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jati Bhatakya Jamati Aadarsh Prasarak Mandal and ors., 2002(5) Bom. C.R. 95, has observed thus:-