Management is liable for back wages where illegal termination results from its own unfair and biased disciplinary proceedings.

Respondent No. 5 was appointed as a teacher in 1994 and confirmed in 1999

On September 4, 2015, the Petitioner/Management suspended her without waiting for permission from the Education Department

Following an inquiry which the School Tribunal later termed "farcical," she was terminated on October 31, 2017

The School Tribunal, Mumbai, allowed her appeal on December 20, 2019, quashing the termination and granting reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages

This judgment attained finality as it was not challenged

While she was reinstated in January 2020, a dispute arose regarding the liability for back wages

The Management filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the State to pay the back wages, arguing that since the post was grant-in-aid and no substitute teacher was appointed during her termination period, the State suffered no "double payment"

The court primarily applied the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (“MEPS Rules”), specifically Rules 33 and 35 regarding suspension and subsistence allowance

It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Educational Society, Tumsar v. State of Maharashtra, which established that the State is only liable for back wages if the termination was at the State's behest or if the State played a role in the inquiry

Furthermore, it applied the principle from Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, which holds that where an employer acts in gross violation of statutory provisions or natural justice, the "wrongdoer" employer must bear the burden of full back wages rather than being relieved of the financial consequence of its misconduct

The Full Bench decision in Awdesh Narayan K. Singh v. Adarsh Vidya Mandir Trust was cited to establish that management is liable for subsistence allowance when suspension is effected without prior permission

The Court observed that the School Tribunal had completely exonerated the teacher, finding the inquiry biased, defective, and farcical

The Management had acted unilaterally in suspending the teacher before receiving departmental permission and conducting a flawed disciplinary proceeding

The Court rejected the Management's argument that the State should pay because no substitute teacher was hired; it reasoned that the State had no role in the victimisation of the employee

To shift the financial burden to the State would effectively grant a "premium" to the Management for its own wrongdoings

Since the entire disciplinary action was the "handiwork" of the Management, the employer-employee relationship and the findings of unfair labor practice necessitated that the Management, and not the public exchequer, fulfill the Tribunal’s order for back wages

The Court clarified that while the Management had already paid approximately Rs. 35 lakhs ad-hoc, any remaining disputes regarding the exact calculation of dues (claimed at Rs. 61 lakhs by the teacher) should be resolved in the pending Darkhast (execution) proceedings

Rule was discharged with no order as to costs