Petition challenges the dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal under Section 9 of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) by the School Tribunal. The petitioner, who was appointed as headmaster on 19th June 1991 and terminated on 6th October 2001, sought reinstatement. The legal journey included multiple appeals, a remand by the High Court, and procedural questions under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Despite procedural bars cited by the School Tribunal, the petitioner argued that each appeal had distinct subject matters. The court found in favor of the petitioner, reinstating him with full back wages and continuity of service.

Petitioner's Persistent Efforts to Save His Job

1. Initial Steps Taken by Petitioner:

   • Petitioner never intended to abandon his claim.
   • Immediate steps taken at every stage to save his job.
   • Management's letter dated 6th October 2001 removed him as headmaster but did not terminate his service.

2. Filing and Amending Appeals:

   • Petitioner filed an appeal challenging the removal order.
   • Attended school and was allowed to work but not to sign the muster.
   • Filed another appeal against the termination on 9th October 2001.
   • Attempted to amend the first appeal based on management’s stand, but amendment application was rejected.

Tribunal and Legal Findings

3. Tribunal’s Decision:

   • Tribunal held termination illegal as due process was not followed.
   • Denied relief of reinstatement based on procedural grounds (Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC).

4. Court’s Analysis:

   • Persistent steps by the petitioner show he did not abandon his claim.
   • Dismissal of the appeal on procedural grounds was an error in law.
   • Order XXIII of CPC and related decisions not applicable to the case involving MEPS Act Section 9.

Reinstatement and Back Wages

5. Supreme Court’s Interpretation of "Reinstatement":

   • Referenced definitions from various dictionaries and legal lexicons.
   • In wrongful termination cases, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
   • Consideration of factors such as length of service and nature of misconduct in deciding back wages.

6. Petitioner’s Entitlement:

   • No record of gainful employment post-termination.
   • Considering service length, abrupt removal, and unchallenged Tribunal findings, the petitioner entitled to full back wages and reinstatement.
   • Management’s actions breached principles of natural justice.

Court’s Order

7. Final Order:

   • Quashed the Tribunal’s judgment dated 24th March 2009.
   • Allowed Appeal No. 4 of 2006.
   • Ordered reinstatement of the petitioner as headmaster with effect from 6th October 2001.
   • Directed the management to implement the order within two months.

8. Writ Petition:

   • Allowed in the terms specified above.