JUDGMENT : 1. In Appeal No. 24 of 2007 decided by the School Tribunal on 16.08.2008 under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service Regulation) Act, (in short MEPS Act), the School Tribunal has declared the orders of termination dated 18.09.2006 and 26.06.2007 as illegal and void. The said orders are quashed and set aside and the management is directed to reinstate the respondent No.1 on the post of Assistant Teacher without any order of back-wages, but with continuity in service. It is the management which has filed this petition, which was admitted on 08.06.2009. There was an order of status quo passed by this Court and the management was directed to appoint some other persons in place of respondent No.1, subject to the result of this petition. 2. The School Tribunal records the finding that the appointment of the respondent No.1 as Shikshan Sewak fora period of three years from 01.07.2000 to 30.06.2003 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.1 was continued in service beyond 30.06.2003. The case of the management is that respondent No.1 was terminated from service on 18.09.2006, whereas the case of the respondent No.1 was that he was continued in service upto 25.06.2007 when he was terminated from service. The School Tribunal records the finding that the termination was bad in law, whether it was was on 18.09.2006 or 25.06.2007, for the reason that the respondent No.1 acquired deemed confirmation in service, in terms of Section 5(2) read with Section 2 (24A) of the MEPS Act upon completion of 3 years continuous service as Shikshan Sewak on 30.03.2003. Reliance is placed on terms of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Avadh Mahel Pal vrs. Shivdutta Educational Trust and others reported in 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 659 , followed by the learned single judges in the matter of The President/Secretary Shivdatta Education Trust and anr vrs. Ramlocah Rajbali Patel and ors, reported in 2008 (4) ALL MR 889 and Principal, Our Lady of Salvationool vrs. Rashmi Upadhyay and ors reported in 2009 (3) Bom. C.R 401. The Tribunal holds that without aholding an enquiry, the termination should not have been effected of the respondent No.1, who was a permanent employee. 3. Ramlocah Rajbali Patel and ors, reported in 2008 (4) ALL MR 889 and Principal, Our Lady of Salvationool vrs. Rashmi Upadhyay and ors reported in 2009 (3) Bom. C.R 401. The Tribunal holds that without aholding an enquiry, the termination should not have been effected of the respondent No.1, who was a permanent employee. 3. The appointment of respondent No.1 during the period from 01.07.2000 to 30.06.2003 as Shikshan Sewak in terms of the Government Resolution dated 30.10.2000 is not disputed, however, according to the management, it was by an order dated 30.06.2000, whereas, according to the respondent no.1, it was by an order dated 24.06.2000. Copies of both these orders are placed on record of the Tribunal. The respondent No.1 claimed that after successfully completing three years tenure an Shikshan Sewak during 01.07/2000 to 30.06.2003, he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by an order dated 25.06.2003 on purely temporary basis with effect from 01.07.2003 until further orders. According to the respondent No.1, this appointment was approved by the Education Officer by an order dated 06.02.2006. The management has denied to have issued the order dated 25.06.2003. The stand of the management was that the respondent No.1 misrepresented the Education Officer in obtaining the approval to his appointment by an order dated 06.02.2006. The respondent No.1 claimed to have been appointed as incharge Headmaster by an order dated 16.07.2005 on temporary basis until further orders. This document has also been denied by the management and there is nothing on record to show that this appointment as incharge Headmaster was approved by the Education Officer. The petitioner management claimed that the respondent was terminated from service by an order dated 18.09.2006. However, the respondent No.1 has denied the said termination and took the stand before the School Tribunal that he was continued in service upto 25.06.2007 when an order of termination was issued. The management denies the order of termination dated 25.06.2007. 4. The School Tribunal has not adjudicated upon the factual controversy pointed out in the aforesaid paras. The parties do not dispute that the amendment introduced on 23.03.2007 to various provisions of MEPS Act are held to be retrospective in operation in all the judgments cited supra. The management denies the order of termination dated 25.06.2007. 4. The School Tribunal has not adjudicated upon the factual controversy pointed out in the aforesaid paras. The parties do not dispute that the amendment introduced on 23.03.2007 to various provisions of MEPS Act are held to be retrospective in operation in all the judgments cited supra. The question which is required to be considered is, whether the amendment introduced on 23.03.2007, reopens the issue of earlier termination on 18.09.2006, so as to confer upon the respondent no.1 the benefit of deemed conformation in service. It is the contention of Dr. Anjan De, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment dated 23.03.2007, even if given retrospective effect, will apply only to cases where the employees were in service on 23.03.2007 and it would not apply to those who were out of employment on 23.03.2007. Shri Vaishnav, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 disputes this position. The School Tribunal has not recorded any such finding on these aspects of the matter. To deal with this aspect, the School Tribunal will have to first of all, record the finding of fact on the question as to whether the respondent No.1 was terminated on 18.09.2006 or 25.06.2007. 5. If the School Tribunal records the finding that the termination on 18.09.2006 is required to be accepted then it will have to record the finding of fact on several aspects of the matter, more particularly the alleged appointment of the respondent No.1 as Assistant Teacher on 25.06.2003. The parties have produced voluminous documents on record of the School Tribunal. 6. In the absence of the findings on all the aforestated aspects of the matter, the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal cannot be sustained and it will have to be set aside with an order of remand. Since serious disputed questions of fact are involved, the School Tribunal will have to permit the parties to lead oral as well as documentary evidence to prove the documents placed on record. It is only on proof of documents produced on record, that the Court can proceed to record the finding on merits of the matter. Such an exercise cannot be avoided. 7. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. It is only on proof of documents produced on record, that the Court can proceed to record the finding on merits of the matter. Such an exercise cannot be avoided. 7. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 16.08.2008 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 24 of 2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the School Tribunal to decide it afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court. The parties to appear before the School Tribunal on 19.06.2017. The School Tribunal to decide the matter within a period of eight months from the date of first appearance of the parties before it. Rule made absolute in above terms. No orders as to costs.