The suit for arrears of salary was maintainable as there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant school regarding her pay, and the dispute did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Educational Appellate Tribunal as per the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975.

A.M. Farooq, J.—This is an appeal filed by the Defendant in O.S. No. 77 of 1994 on the file of the learned Small Causes and Additional Civil Judge, Mysore, decreeing the suit filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case as found from the pleadings of the parties and the impugned judgment are as follows:

3. The Plaintiff/Respondent filed the suit claiming Rs. 1,28,236/- as arrears of salary due to her from the Appellant/Defendant. It is stated by the Plaintiff that she has worked as Assistant Mistress in the Defendant school from the year 1969. Her salary was not paid to her for the period from May 1990 to February 1991 and she had filed O.S. No. 519 of 1991 before the learned III Additional I Munsiff, Mysore, claiming salary for that period and subsequently, she has not been paid salary from then onwards. It is stated by her that she was to retire in March 1994 and she was suffering for non-receipt of salary from the Defendant.

4. The Appellant/Defendant filed the written statement contending that the Defendant-school is started and run by MARY's Association a registered society and the school caters to the educational needs of the backward people. The school is run without the aid from the Government and no donation is collected by the school. That the school also charges very nominal fees to the students. While denying the averment made by the Plaintiff, it is the case of the Defendant that the Plaintiff was appointed as an Assistant Mistress in the year 1969 on a salary of Rs. 340/- and 800/- and her appointment was approved by the Education Department in 1982. That the Defendant has been paying the contractual salary to the Plaintiff and since the school caters to the need of the poor and no grant-in-aid is received, the Defendant was not able to pay the Government salary to its teaching staff. That the Plaintiff was trying to impose a new pay structure by filing the suit. That she can claim only the contractual salary. That the suit is filed with a view to circumvent the law which does not allow the Plaintiff to do what is prohibited by law. That the suit is not maintainable. That the salary bills have been prepared every month and the Plaintiff herself refused to receive the salary. That there is no cause of action and sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that the Defendant is due of the suit claim towards her salary?

(2) Whether the Plaintiff further proves that there is an agreement between herself and the Defendant in respect of her pay?

(3) Whether the Defendant proves that the Plaintiff is not entitled for the suit-claim, apart from salary fixed by the Defendant-trust of Education?

(4) Whether the suit is maintainable?

(5) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?

(6) To what order or relief the parties are entitled?

Thereafter the Plaintiff gave evidence as PW-1 and examined the A.E.O. Siddaraju as PW-2. On behalf of the Defendant/Appellant, the Secretary of the school was examined as DW-1. The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record answered all the issues in favour of the Plaintiff and decreed the suit as prayed for by the Plaintiff with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of suit till realisation. That is the decree which is under challenge in this appeal.

6. Sri P.R. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that in view of the provisions of Sections 8 and 11 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 the suit is barred and not maintainable. The 2nd contention is that infact, the suit is one for creation of salary and the suit is not maintainable on that ground also. It is further contended that the Appellant/school is not a Government Aided Institution but, a private institution and therefore, the Plaintiff could not have asked for the Government Salary. The learned Counsel has also cited certain d