2013 (8) TMI 1142 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to wages during forced suspension.
2. Validity of inquiry and termination.
3. Award of back wages.

Summary:

1. Entitlement to wages during forced suspension:
The Supreme Court examined whether the Appellant, a teacher, was entitled to wages for the period she was forcibly kept out of service by the school management. The Appellant was suspended without the approval of the Education Officer, which was required under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (the Rules). Despite the Education Officer's refusal to approve the suspension, the management did not revoke it nor paid subsistence allowance as mandated by the Rules.

2. Validity of inquiry and termination:
The Appellant's suspension was challenged in Writ Petition No. 8404 of 2006, which resulted in the Bombay High Court declaring that she be deemed to have rejoined her duties from 14.3.2007 and entitled to consequential benefits. However, the management conducted an ex parte inquiry, not allowing the Appellant's representative to participate, and terminated her service on 15.6.2007. The School Tribunal found the inquiry and termination arbitrary and violative of natural justice, noting the management's vindictive attitude and the frivolous nature of the allegations.

3. Award of back wages:
The Tribunal ordered reinstatement with full back wages, recognizing that the Appellant was not gainfully employed during the suspension. The High Court, however, set aside the back wages award, citing lack of evidence of non-employment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in this decision, emphasizing that the burden of proof for gainful employment lies with the employer once the employee asserts non-employment. The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal's order for full back wages, noting the frivolous charges and procedural violations in the inquiry.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstating the Tribunal's order for full back wages and directing the management to comply within four months, failing which interest would be payable at 9% per annum. Non-compliance would invite contempt proceedings.