The Management of Vinayaka Vidyanikethana vs Smt. Pushpavathamma

Anand Byrareddy

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondent remains absent. Statement of objections are not filed.

Facts of the case are as follows:

The respondent was employed from the year 1991 as an Assistant Teacher in the Pre-Primary School managed by the first petitioner. She was pald a consolidated salary of Rs. 400/- per month. It transpires that the respondent demanded a higher salary. Since the petitioners found that the respondent''s services were not up to the mark and since she was employed on a contract which was renewed from time 10 time, the petitioner''s services were discontinued. It is in that background that the respondent had preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal claiming that she had been terminated from service illegally without holding an enquiry on any alleged misconduct and therefore, sought reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The appeal was contested by the petitioners and the Tribunal, however, having held that the petitioners had illegally terminated the services of the respondent and further that she was entitled to be paid on par with teachers working in Government schools, has allowed the appeal and has set-aside the order of punishment and directed reinstatement of the respondent. The respondent was held entitled to be paid salary on such reinstatement on par with similarly placed teachers in Government institutions while granting liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate action in respect of any alleged misconduct. It is that which is under challenge in the present petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent was only a temporary teacher and she had not continuously rendered service to the petitioners. She was therefore not an employee of a Private Educational Institution as defined under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act" for brevity). Further, the Nursery section of the school in which the respondent was employed, was not recognised by the State Government and the Pre-Primary Schools were not governed by the Act and the Rules. The Tribunal having placed reliance on several decisions, would therefore be inapplicable in so far as the petitioner - Management is concerned. It is therefore contended that there was no evidence of the terms of employment nor the manner in which the respondent''s services were discontinued.

The bald allegation of the respondent that she was a permanent employee and that she was illegally terminated without holding any enquiry, was in the face of the circumstance that the respondent had not chosen to place any material before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the fact was that the respondent as already stated, was a temporary employee who was engaged by the petitioners from time to time and at the point of time, she had voluntarily discontinued from attending to work and it is thereafter that the appeal was filed before the Tribunal.

The respondent having admitted several of the suggestions in this regard, in her evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has completely overlooked the same. The fact that the respondent had admitted that she had only a pass in Pre-Primary Teachers Examination and this was so as evident from Exhibit P-4 and that she was a teacher in a Pre-Primary Nursery Section was also established beyond all reasonable doubt. In the face of the circumstance that the Nursery section of the school is neither recognised by the State Government nor admitted to grant-in-aid and in the absence of a contract between the parties in that regard, the petitioners being mulcted with the liability to reinstate the petitioner and to pay her salary on par with employees of Government institutions are paid, is onerous on the petitioners which manages a small institution with a bare minimum of students would completely upset the finances of the institution, probably compelling it to close clown. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the Tribunal''s findings are without any basis and are totally contrary to the actual facts and admitted circumstances which the respondent in her evidence before the Tribunal has admitted and therefore, would submit that the petition be allowed.

In the absence of any challenge to the petition and the petition averments not having been disputed, from a bare reading of the impugned judgment, it is evident that the. Tribunal has not relied on any material evidence in support of the respondent''s case and has proceeded on probabilities which was not permissible and therefore, the petition stands allowed. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set-aside.