Mohan Gangaram Adsool vs Jeevan Kala Mandal

R.M. Lodha, J.—The Petitioner Mr. Mohan Gangaram Adsool was appointed as a P.T. teacher on 1.7.1989 in the Respondent No. 2 School viz, Dr. Parnerker Maharaj Vidyalaya, Vashivili, Taluka-Khalapur, District-Raigad run by Respondent No. 1 trust. On 22.3.90 an order was issued terminating the Petitioner''s services with effect from. 30.4.1990. Constrained by the termination order the Petitioner preferred appeal before the School Tribunal, Pune Region, Pune u/s 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The School Tribunal after hearing the parties allowed the appeal preferred by the Petitioner and quashed and set-aside the termination order dated 22.3.90 and declared that Petitioner continued in employment with the Respondents with continuity of service and all consequential benefits including back wages. The order passed by the tribunal allowing the Petitioner''s appeal on 30th August-91 came to be challenged by the Respondents by filing writ petition before this Court. The Writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.2.92 with liberty to make review application before the School Tribunal. The said revised application has also been dismissed by the tribunal on 30th March-94. It would be pertinent to note that the order passed by the Tribunal on 30th August-91 has become final and neither during pendency of writ petition upto February 92 nor during the pendency of review application upto 30th March-94 there was any order staying the effect and operation of the order dated 30th August-91 passed by School Tribunal. Despite the receipt of the order dated 30.8.91, when the said order was not complied with and obeyed by the. Respondents, the Petitioner filed this contempt petition before this Court on 27th August 1992.

An affidavit in-reply has been filed by one Shri Sripat Vasudeo Deshpande, Headmaster of Respondent No. 2 school who is also one of the members of the managing committee of the trust. In the said affidavit in-reply filed by Shri S.V. Deshpande, it is admitted that the judgment of the tribunal dated 30th August-91 has become final and review application was dismissed by the tribunal on 30th March-94, It is stated in the affidavit in reply that Petitioner has been reinstated on 2.6.94 as an assistant teacher in the school. As regards of payment of backwages, it is stated in the affidavit that the school is 100% grant-in aid school, and, concerned Education Officer is considering the bill raised by Respondents No. 1 to 4 towards payment of backwages to the Petitioner. In the affidavit in-reply also it is stated that in case grants are not released by the Education Officer, the management would make payment towards backwages in four installments of approximately Rs. 25,000/- each. In the affidavit in reply the deponent has also submitted that for the non-compliance of the order he tenders unconditional apology.

From record I find that Shri R.D. Sonawane, Respondent No. 3 has also filed affidavit in reply on 27th September-92. In the said affidavit in reply, it is stated that he is entitled to approach the High Court and the School Tribunal for review, and, if ultimately he fails in all his efforts to get the judgment and order of the tribunal set aside then he would be bound by the same and would comply the order.

The aforesaid facts would clearly demonstrate that the Petitioner''s termination order was set aside by the tribunal on 30th August-91, and, Respondents were directed to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service and payment of backwages. Various notices were issued by the Petitioner on 24.9.91, 5.10.91 and 18.4.92 to the Respondents No. 3 and 4 for compliance of the order dated 30th August-91 but the order was not complied. Admittedly, there was no order staying operation and effect of the order dated 30.8.91 passed by the tribunal and, therefore, the Respondents ought to have complied with the order dated 30.8.91. The explanation set-out by the Respondent No. 3 in his affidavit in reply as well as the explanation given by Shri. S.V. Deshpande in affidavit to reply do not furnish justifiable ground for non-compliance of the order dated 30th August-91. Despite the communications sent by the Petitioner to the Respondents No. 3 and 4 herein for compliance of the order dated 30.8.91 passed by School Tribunal, no positive action was taken by Respondent No. 1 to 4 for due compliance of the order dated 30.8.91. The writ petition was filed by Respondents No. 1 to 4 before this Court challenging the order dated 30.8.91 passed by School Tribunal but the same was withdrawn on 12.2.92 itself. Thereafter, review application was filed before School Tribunal but no stay order was granted by the tribunal, but still the Respondents No. 1 and 4 did not comply with the order. The review application was also dismissed on 30th March-94 but till date the backwages from the date of termination till his reinstatement have not been paid and thus the order dated 30.8.1991 remains not complied. Though in the affidavit in-reply of Respondent No. 3 it is stated that once the order of the tribunal becomes final he would be bound by the said order and would comply the same but, admittedly till date the order dated 30.8.91 has not been fully complied with though even according to Respondents No. 1 to 4 the said order had became final on 30th March-94, This clearly indicates the defiant attitude of the Respondents in not complying with the school Tribunal order dated 30.8.91 and deliberately continue to flout the order dated 30.8.91 by not making payment of full backwages to the Petitioner till date. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am clearly of the view that the Respondent No. 1 to 4 have deliberately and intentionally disobeyed the order of the School Tribunal passed on 30.8.91, and, they are guilty of civil contempt u/s 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Petitioner is assistant teacher and low-paid employee and because of illegal order of termination passed by the management of the school he remained without employment from the month of May-1990 to the date of reinstatement i.e. June of 1994. At least after the review application was dismissed, within reasonable time thereof the backwages must have been paid to the Petitioner, but that has not been done so far. Merely because the concerned school is 100% grant-in-aid school, the respondents Nos. 1 and 4 are not absolved from the primary duty of making payment of backwages to its employee. Moreover the tribunal passed the order way back on 30.08.1991 but the payment has not been made so far resulting in acute suffering of the Petitioner. The Respondents are duty bound to pay to the Petitioner the backwages which they also admit but still have not paid the said amount till date. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 4, I am satisfied that for the civil contempt committed by the Respondents No. 1 and 4 the Respondents No. 3 and 4 should be punished with simple imprisonment for a term of one month and fine of Rs. 1000/- each. Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 at this stage expressed his client''s desire to make payment of backwages to the Petitioner as early as possible. I have considered this aspect of the matter and pass the following order.

The Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are held guilty of civil contempt u/s 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for disobeying the order dated 30.8.1991 passed by School Tribunal, Pune. The Respondents No. 3 and 4 herein are punished with simple imprisonment for a term of one month with fine of Rs. 1000/- each. The sentence of imprisonment as well as fine shall remain suspended for a period of two months from today and in case the entire backwages are paid within two months from today, the sentence of imprisonment and fine shall not be given effect to. In case backwages are not paid within 2 months from today the Respondents No. 1 and 4 shall also be liable to pay interest on the outstanding backwages @ 12% p.a. for the entire period and the order of sentence of imprisonment and fine shall also be enforced against Respondent No. 3 and 4.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.