1988 INSC 0013
                                      Sheikh Mahboob Mader and Another

                                                           Vs

                                      Syed Ashfaque Hussain and Another

                                          Civil Appeal No. 170 of 1988

                                       (Ranganath Misra, L.M. Sharma JJ)

                                                      12.01.1988

                                                        ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. Appellant 2 is an education society while appellant 1 is its Joint Secretary. Respondent 1 was an
Assistant Teacher in the employment of the school run by appellant 2. Dispute arose as to the
employment of the teacher in the institution; while the employer claimed that the teacher had
resigned from service and that is how his services came to an end, respondent 1 maintained that he
had not resigned from service and that a blank paper with his signature taken from him at the him of
his appointment as teacher had been utilised as the letter of resignation. The School Tribunal, relied,
inter alia, on three affidavits given by once-upon-a-time employees of the institution stating that
appellant-society had been following the practice of taking blank papers with signatures at the time
of issue of appointment orders and converting the same into letters of resignation as and when
necessary. The allegation was specifically denied by filing an affidavit before the High Court.

3. Two writ petitions appeared to have been simultaneously heard and disposed of by the High
Court. In one which is not subject matter of this appeal the High Court stated :

                  Heard Miss Pisolkar. We have also gone through the record and proceedings. We are
                  satisfied the order of the Tribunal is fully justified. Only technical points are being
                  raised here to cover the malpractices of the petitioner. Rejected.

The impugned order is one of simple rejection of the writ petition

4. Appellant's counsel claims that the observation of the Tribunal (sic High Court) is very much
adverse to the institution. If the fact as found is true the institution would suffer in its functioning
and it may be difficult for the institution to get good teachers for employment and for receiving
assistance from government. The High Court should have given an opportunity to the appellants to
place their case particularly in regard to those observations reference to which has been made above.

5. In this Court when notice was issued the appellants were called upon the deposit a sum of Rs.
1000 to meet the expenses of respondent 1. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that it will be
appropriate that the order of the High court dismissing the writ petition should be set aside and the
matter should go back to the High Court for a fresh disposal on the basis of the materials already
before it after hearing the parties. Respondent 1 will have now to participate in a further hearing
before the High Court. We are, therefore of the view that the appellants should be called upon to
meet the expenses of respondent 1. We accordingly direct that the appellants shall deposit a further
sum of Rs. 1000 before the High Court within four weeks from today and the same may be
withdrawn by respondent 1 without any condition.

6. Respondent 1 maintains that he has not been paid his salary. The High Court will look into it and
make an interim order calling upon the appellants to pay the same if it finds that appropriate. Appeal
is disposed of. No costs.

</html