AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 186 wordsHeard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
The only issue in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in directing reinstatement of respondent no.2 herein and ordering back wages to be paid to her. An application has been filed along with a letter dated 20.04.2018 which clearly shows that respondent no.2 namely, Smt. Zareena Parkar, joined as teacher in Kasturba Cross Road Municipal Corporation Urdu School on 02.11.1998. She continues to serve as a regular teacher in that school.
Despite service of notice twice, respondent no.2 has not put appearance either in-person or through an advocate, presumably, because she does not have anything to counter the averments made in the application.
In view of the above, it is apparent that respondent no. 2 was working for the entire period as a regular teacher in the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Katurba Cross Road School. She cannot be allowed to get pay from two employers. She cannot be ordered to be reinstated and to be paid back wages. The Order of the High Court to this extent is set aside. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.