MANAGEMENT OF VINAYAKA VIDYANIKETHANA, INDIRANAGAR, NELAMANGALA - 562123, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND HEAD MISTRESS, VINAYAKA VIDYANIKETHANA, INDIRANAGAR, NELAMANGALA - 562123 Vs. SMT. PUSHPAVATHAMMA, W/O. N.M. MAHADEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondent remains absent. Statement of objections are not filed.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.