DEEPALI GUNDU SURWASE versus KRANTI JUNIOR ADHYAPAK MAHAVIDYALAYA (D.ED.) AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 9 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 12-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 16 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2013] 9 S.C.R. 1 
DEEPALI GUNDU SURWASE 
v. 
KRANTI JUNIOR ADHYAPAK MAHAVIDYALAYA (D.ED.) 
AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 6767 of 2013) 
AUGUST 12, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
c 
Back wages on reinstatement -
Suspension and 
termination of services of school teacher - Declared by 
Tribunal as illegal - Reinstatement - Award of full back 
wages, set aside by High Court - Held: High Court committed 
grave error by interfering with the order passed by Tribunal 
0 
for payment of back wages, ignoring that the charges levelled 
against appellant were frivolous and the inquiry was held in 
gross violation of the rules of natural justice -
Impugned 
order set aside and order passed by Tribunal restored -
Management shall pay full back wages to appellant. 
Award of back wages, when termination of employee 
found to be illegal - Principles culled out - Labour law -
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.11-A - Back wages. 
E 
Maharashtra Employee$ of Private Schools (Conditions 
F 
of Service) Act, 1977: 
Objects of the Act - Explained. 
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions 
of Service) Rules, 1981: 
G 
r. 34 -
Suspension of employee - Entitlement to 
subsistence allowance - Discussed. 
Words and Phrases: 
1 
H 
-
-
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
'Reinstatement' in the context of termination of service of 
an employee - Connotation of - Explained. 
The appellant was appointed as a teacher in a 
Primary School run by a trust and receiving grant in aid, 
8 which included rent for the building. In 2005, the 
Municipal Corporation raised a tax bill of Rs.79,974/-
treating the said property as commercial. Thereupon,' the 
Headmistress of the school, who was also President of 
the Trust, addressed a letter to all the employees 
C including the appellant requiring them to contribute a sum 
of Rs.1500/- per month towards the tax liability. The 
appellant refused to comply with the said dictate. The 
management issued as many as 25 memos to the 
appellant and then placed her under suspension by letter 
dated 14.11.2006. She was not even paid subsistence 
D allowance. The management issued notice dated 
28.12.2006 for holding an inquiry against the appellant 
under rr. 36 and 37 of the Maharashtra Employees of 
Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The 
appellant's nominee was not allowed to participate in the 
E inquiry proceedings, which were conducted ex parte. 
Ultimately, the appellant's services were terminated by 
order dated 15.6.2007. The appeal filed by the appellant 
was allowed by the School Tribunal with full back wages. 
In the writ petition filed by the Management, the High 
F Court concurred with the Tribunal that suspension and 
termination of the appellant were violative of the statutory 
provisions and the principles of natural justice, but, it, 
relying upon the judgments in J.K. Synthetics Ltd1• and 
Zilla Parishad2, Gadchiroli, set aside the direction for 
G payment of back wages. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
1. 
K.P. Agrawal and another 2007 (2) SCR 60. 
H 
2. 
Prakash slo Nagorao Thete and another 2009 (4) Mh. L.J. 628. 
DEEPALI GUNDU SURWASE v. KRANTI JUNIOR 
3 
ADHYAPAK MAHAVIDYALAYA (D.ED.) 
HELD: 1.1. The Maharashtra Employees of Private A 
Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 
was enacted to regulate the recruitment and conditions 
of service of employees in private schools in the State 
and to instill a sense of security among the employees 
so that they may fearlessly discharge their duties 
B 
towards the pupil, the institution and the society. Another 
object of the Act is to ensure that the employees becom~ 
accountable to the management and contribute their 
might for improving the standard of education. [Para 12] 
~0-E~ 
C 
1.2. Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private 
Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 empowers 
the management to suspend an employee with the prior 
approval of the competent authority. The exercise of this 
power is hedged with the condition that the period of D 
suspension shall not exceed four months without prior 
permission of the authority concerned. The suspended 
employee is entitled to subsistence allowance under the 
scheme of payment [Rule 34] through Co-operative Bank 
for a period of four months. A suspended employee can 
E 
be denied subsistence allowance only in the 
contingencies enumerated in clauses (3) and (4) of r. 33, 
i.e., when he takes up private

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.