30 July 2024 Education >> Miscellaneous   |   Unpaid salary/bonus/gratuity >> Workplace/ Professional Related  

Introduction:

The ongoing legal dispute between a teacher, the School Tribunal, and the State Government underscores significant challenges in executing tribunal orders and determining liability for payment of back wages. The case of Sunanda Wakhare v/s Jaiwant Bhaguji Gadekar & Others involves the enforcement of decrees from the School Tribunal and the conflicting arguments about the responsibility of paying back wages, especially when multiple parties are involved.

Case Background and Orders:

The School Tribunal had issued orders directing the payment of back wages to Respondent No. 1, an Assistant Teacher. Despite these orders, the State Government has maintained that its actions in paying the teacher through grants to the institution fulfill its obligations under the Tribunal’s decree. This stance has led to prolonged legal battles and disputes over compliance.

Arguments and Legal Considerations:

State Government’s Position: The State Government contends that the execution orders have exceeded the Tribunal's original decree. They argue that their compliance—through deductions from the institution’s yearly salary grant—satisfies the decree. The State Government also references a previous court order from June 10, 2003, as a basis for their position. However, since this order was overturned by the Supreme Court, the argument based on this order was dismissed.

Mr. Sawant, representing the State Government, argued that since the position vacated by Respondent No. 1 was filled by the institution, the full back wages should not be the State Government's responsibility. He contends that if the vacancy had remained unfilled, the State Government would be liable. Therefore, the liability for the back wages should rest with the institution rather than the State Government.

Institution’s and Respondent No. 1’s Position: 

Representatives for Respondent No. 1 and the institution argue that the State Government has unduly delayed the execution of the Tribunal’s orders. They highlight that the institution’s failure to pay the full back wages is compounded by the State Government’s attempts to evade responsibility. The case's protracted nature suggests that the efforts to enforce the decree have been impeded by unnecessary legal maneuvers. The Supreme Court's ruling in Educational Society, Tumsar and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra (2016) supports the argument that, when a terminated employee’s termination is deemed illegal, the State Government should bear the financial burden of back wages, especially if the institution is fully aided by the State.

Court’s Findings and Directions:

The court examined the submissions and determined that the State Government’s arguments were insufficient to negate its liability. It was noted that the State Government’s strategy of paying the back wages through institutional grants could lead to an impractically slow recovery of the decretal amount, potentially frustrating the execution of the decree.

The court emphasized that the teacher, Respondent No. 1, was a permanent employee against a sanctioned post, and therefore, the primary liability for paying back wages rests with the State Government. The court's decision aligns with the Supreme Court's observation that, generally, when a terminated employee's reinstatement is ordered, the State Government should cover the back wages.

The court issued the following directions:

1. Payment of Full Back Wages: The State Government is directed to pay the entire amount of back wages as decreed, totalling Rs. 58,38,481 as of June 6, 2022. The payment should be made directly to Respondent No. 1's bank account within two weeks of the court’s order.
2. Calculation and Communication: Both parties are to calculate and verify the exact amount due and inform each other accordingly.
3. Recovery from Institution: The State Government retains the right to recover the amount from future grants to the institution but must ensure the full back wages are paid to Respondent No. 1 without delay.

Conclusion:

The court's decision underscores the State Government's primary responsibility to ensure the payment of back wages as per the Tribunal’s decree. The decision reflects a commitment to upholding legal judgments and ensuring that financial obligations resulting from unlawful terminations are met promptly. The case exemplifies the complexities of executing judicial orders in administrative contexts and highlights the importance of timely and appropriate compliance with court decrees. The court's directive aims to rectify the protracted delays and ensure that the affected teacher receives the compensation to which they are legally entitled. The ongoing delays and legal maneuvers by the State Government reflect broader issues in the execution of judgments and enforcement of legal rights, emphasizing the need for efficient legal processes and adherence to judicial directives.