SECRETARY,AKOLA TALUKA EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ANR. versus SHIVAJI AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 949 · Decided: 05-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-; 
,,.. 
SECRETARY,AKOLATALUKAEDUCATIONSOCIETY ANDANR 
A 
v. 
SHIV An AND ORS. 
APRIL 5, 2007 
{S. B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Maharashtra employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) 
Rules, 1981-Rule 26(2)(ii)-Termination without notice-Employees not 
given three months notice-Order of termination bad in /aw-Labour law- C 
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation 
Act, 1977. 
Labour laws-Back wages-Termination of employees-Tribunal found 
order of termination malafide and allowed full back wages-Challenge 
against-Held: Tribunal ought not to have granted full back wages-Tribunal 'D 
failed to take into account the financial condition of employer-Jn peculiar 
facts and circumstances, interest of justice would be met if grant of back 
wages is confined to 25% from date of termination till their reinstatement. 
Appeal-Fresh plea-Plea that institute in question was not recognized E 
one and Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the case, raised for 
the first time before this Court-Held, not entertainable. 
Appellant No. 1 has been imparting vocational training to the students 
admitted in their training institute, in different disciplines like Draftsman 
Civil, Electrician, Wireman, Welder and Fitter etc. The strength of the F 
students in the aforementioned disciplines allegedly began to go down from 
year to year. The services of respondents-Employees/teachers were terminated 
on the plea that school had to be closed down. The respondents filed appeal 
before the School Tribunal. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the 
said appeals was questioned on the ground that the institute in question was G 
not a school within the meaning of the provisions of the Maharashtra 
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. 
The Tribunal held that the institute was school within the meaning of the 
provisions of the said Act and that the plea of the appellant that the institute 
had to be closed down being incorrect, the orders of termination were ma/a 
fide. Appellant unsuccessfully filed writ petition before High Court. Hence H 
949 
950 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 4 S.C.R. 
A the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the Institute is not covered by the definition of 
the 'private school' within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act, as it 
was not recognized by the authorities under. the said Act; the Tribunal merely 
proceeded on the basis that the school, in fact, was not closed down, but having 
B failed to take into consideration the charts filed before it, from which, it would 
appear that the number of students had gone down in different disciplines; 
and that the Tribunal wrongly allowed full back wages to the teachers without 
taking into consideration the financial conditions of the appellant 
C 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD 1.1. The question as to whether the provisions of the said Act 
were applicable in the case of Appellant school although raised a question of 
jurisdiction, it was necessary for the appellant to plead the jurisdictional fact 
in relation thereto. [Para 15) (956-G] 
1.2. It is true that in the light of the interpretation clause contained in· 
the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) 
Regulation Act, 1977, a 'private school' was-required to be recognized by the 
authorities specified therein. The Tribunal had found that it was recognized 
E by the Ceritral Government. The State also in its counter affidavit contended 
that it is recognized by the State. Appellant did not raise a contention before 
the Tribunal that the institute in question was not recognized by the. 
authorities specified under sub-section (21) of s~2 of the Act. The said 
content.ion was required to be specifically raised so as to enable the 
respondents to meet the same. As the jurisdictional fact required for 
F determining the jurisdiction of the Tribunal had not been stated by the 
appellant, such a contention cannot be allowed to be raised now for the first 
time. {Para.16] {956-H; 957-A-B) 
2.1. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that ifthe 'institute' comes· 
within the description of 'school' in terms of the provisions of the said Act, 
G 
. 
. 
before terminating the services of the respondents, it was obligatory on their 
part to satisfy the conditions precedent therefor. [Para 17] [957-C] 
2.2. Rule 26 of the Maharashtra employees of Private Schools 
(C

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