(1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal raises a short but significant question of law. Appellants herein is a society running a school. Said school is an aided
institution which is provided aid to the extent of 100% by the State of
Maharashtra (respondent No.1). The aid includes the element of salaries
that is payable to the Teachers and other staff employed by the school.
Services of respondent No. 4 were terminated by the appellants-society.
This termination order was challenged by respondent No. 4 by filing an
appeal in the School Tribunal, Nagpur which was pleased to set aside the
termination with direction to reinstate respondent No. 4 and also pay back
wages for the intervening period. Order of the School Tribunal was upheld
by the High Court as the appellants and respondent No. 4 entered into a
settlement whereby the appellants agreed to abide by the same. As per
the direction of the School Tribunal, which has attained finality,
respondent No. 4 is to be paid back wages. The issue is as to who is to
ultimately bear this financial burden, namely, whether appellants are
supposed to pay the back wages to respondent No. 4 out of its own pocket or
is it to come from the coffers of the State which is granting financial aid
to the school.
The detailed factual backdrop in which the said issue has come up for
discussion needs to be traversed at this stage :
Appellant No. 1 Educational Society, Tumsar is the registered society, registered in the year 1983 under the Societies Registration Act. It is registered in the year 1983 under the provisions of Bombay (now Maharashtra) Public Trusts Act, 1950 having its registration PTR No. F -896(B). The trust is formed with object of spreading education. Appellant No. 1 Society is running appellant No. 3 school which is on 100% grant in aid by the Government of Maharashtra. Appellant No. 1 initiated departmental enquiry against its employee, respondent No. 4, who was working on the post of the Assistant Teacher in appellant No.3 school and was also acting as Incharge Headmaster for a short period. Respondent No. 4 was terminated vide order dated 20.09.2010. Respondent No. 4 was appointed on sanctioned post as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981.
(3.) On 28.04.2011, the termination order was challenged by the
respondent No. 4 before the School Tribunal, Nagpur. The School Tribunal,
Nagpur was pleased to set aside the said termination order in Appeal No. A -
56/2010 with a direction to reinstate the respondent No. 4 and pay back wages. The relevant portion of the direction given by the School Tribunal
in this behalf reads as under:
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the said appeal are the appellants
herein. In the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 herein, the Education
Officer (Secondary), Zila Parishad, Nagpur was also impleaded as 4th
respondent. However, there is no specific direction to respondent No. 4 to
pay the aforesaid back wages.;