MEPS Act| Non-Payment Of Notice Pay Does Not Invalidate Termination; Early Acceptance Of Resignation Not Illegal Per Se: Bombay High Court
The Bench held that early acceptance of resignation only affects grant payable to school and does not invalidate termination; noted that teacher was already gainfully employed.
Justice M.M. Sathaye, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that acceptance of resignation by the Management before completion of the notice period under Rule 40 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 does not render such acceptance illegal per se. The Court held that non-payment of notice pay only results in financial consequences for the school and does not invalidate the acceptance of resignation.
The Court further held that an employee who fails to comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 7 of the Act, which requires resignation to be submitted in duplicate by registered post, cannot later rely on such non-compliance against the Management. The Court observed that Section 7 provides protection against coercive resignations and such protection is forfeited when the employee does not follow the prescribed procedure.
Justice M.M. Sathaye dismissing a writ petition that had been pending since 2003, observed, “Rule 40 of the said Rules clearly indicates that a non-permanent employee may leave service after giving one month calender notice and the Management may allow such employee to leave service earlier on payment of pay excluding allowances for one month…”.
“…Rule 40(2) clearly provides that if the Management allows an employee to leave service earlier without due notice or without making payment, a proportionate amount of pay in lieu of notice shall be deducted from the grant payable to the school. This is more than sufficient indication that even if resignation is accepted prior to notice period or without pay, it does not render the acceptance of resignation illegal per se. It only results in the school not getting the grant for one month period in case of nonpermanent to employee”, it noted further.
Advocate Vinayak R. Kumbhar appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Anjani Kumar Singh appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner was appointed as a purely temporary teacher in a school run by Vidya Prasarak Mandal. After complaints regarding her teaching methods and unauthorised absence, she claimed that she was forced to resign on March 02, 1995 and sent a resignation letter on March 08, 1995 under depression.
She later issued a withdrawal letter on March 12, 1995, however, the School Committee had already authorised acceptance of resignation on March 09, 1995 due to academic exigencies, and the resignation was accepted on March 11, 1995 and ratified by the Managing Committee on March 18, 1995. The School Tribunal dismissed her challenge, leading to the present writ petition.
The Court found that since the School Committee's decision to accept the resignation was taken on March 09, 1995 and the actual acceptance was on March 11, 1995, both prior to the withdrawal letter, the withdrawal was ineffective.
The Court also held that the petitioner's argument that she was coerced into resigning could not be sustained since she sent the resignation letter six days later by post when she was not in the Principal's presence, which indicated she meant to resign. The School Tribunal's order was upheld as the most probable view on the material available.
“Mere reading of Section 7 of the said Act, makes it clear that it is a mandate given to the employee that he/she shall draw a letter in duplicate for resignation, sign both the copies and put a date thereon and then forward one copy to the Management by ‘registered post’ and keep other copy with him. If the Petitioner chooses to deviate from this mandate of law, then she cannot contend that non-compliance of Section 7 has to be interpreted against the Management”, the Bench further noted.
Cause Title: Susheela Srinivasan v. Vidya Prasarak Mandal and Others Writ Petition No. 3028 of 2003
Appearances:
Petitioner: Vinayak R. Kumbhar, Rajendra B. Khaire, Aniket S. Phaple, Advocates.
Respondent: Anjani Kumar Singh, Ramesh Jaiswal, N.C. Walimbe, Additional GP, S.D. Chipade, AGP, V.S. Paradkar, Advocates.