- (1.) THESE 4 petitions raise a common question. The 4 matters giving rise to these petitions have also been disposed of by the learned Presiding Officer, Schools Tribunal, Bombay Region, bombay by a common judgment. It would, therefore, be in the fitness of things to dispose of these 4 petitions by this common judgment.
(2.) IT is not necessary to go into details of the facts of the cases for the point that is involved and which we propose to decide being short point on which elaboration of facts is not necessary.
(3.) SUFFICE it to say that the petitioners in these 4 petitions were in the employment of respondent No. 1 which is managed by Respondent No. 2. Their services came to be terminated. Two of them challenged that termination initially by way of writ petitions which were rejected in limine. Against that rejection, they preferred appeals before the Division Bench of this Court, and pending the appeals, they approached the school tribunal with appeals under Section 9 (1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. Thereafter, the Division Bench while disposing of the petitioner's appeals directed the School tribunal to dispose of the petitioner's appeals filed under section 9 (1) of the aforesaid Act. The other two petitioners directly approached the Tribunal in appeal. The School Tribunal, Bombay, ultimately dismissed the appeals. Hence the present writ petitions.;