Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 54
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, S. RACHAIAH, JJ.
Smt. Rabiya Abdul Hamid Bepari – Appellant
Versus
The Chairman, School Managing Committee, Volkart Academy – Respondent
R.F.A. No. 100061 of 2021
Decided On : 24-02-2022
Important Points
Subject
Employment - Teacher Salary Dispute
Act Referred
EDUCATION ACT : S.131, S.96(5), S.96(3)(a)
KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT : S.94, S.96
LIMITATION ACT : S.4, S.5
Headnote
Karnataka Education Act - Sections 94, 131, 94(1), 94(7) and 96 - Arrears of salary - relief of recovery of money - Plaintiff was that, she was appointed on temporary basis as a Teacher for a period of one year in Urdu Medium High School being run by the defendant - She was appointed as a full-time Urdu Assistant Teacher for Urdu Medium High School run by defendant No. 1. According to plaintiff, she worked in the said institution for more than 16 years as a Teacher - Defendant-Institution orally terminated the services of plaintiff without there being any reason and also without any written intimation - Reason assigned by Management at the inquiry made by plaintiff was that very school itself was closed services of plaintiff could not be continued - she has received a total salary from defendant-Institution when in fact defendants ought to have paid her a total amount - personal visits and oral requests with the defendants for arrears of her salary did not yield any result and did not invoke any response from them.
Finding of the Court:
Alleged letter of dischargal, if any, written by defendants - Alleged cessation of the work, in any of its nomenclature, is not a matter of dispute - Only question of dispute is the alleged entitlement of the plaintiff for alleged arrears of salary - When there is no dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, the appeal would not lie under section 94 of the Education Act - No order regarding claim of plaintiff towards her alleged arrears of salary has been passed by the defendants. As such, in the absence of any such order passed by Management against alleged claim of plaintiff, she cannot take the grievance even in the form of a revision under section 131 of Education Act - Therefore remedy available - Competent Civil Court cannot say that it has got no jurisdiction under section 96(5) of the Education Act - Trial Court without noticing the absence of any order of dismissal, removal or reduction of the rank as the subject matter of litigation.
Result: Appeal is allowed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Smt. P.G. Naik.
For the Respondent: Sri. Z.N. Hansi.
JUDGMENT :
H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J.
1. In Original Suit No. 547/2018 filed by the present appellant as plaintiff in the Court of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gokak, the present respondents were defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The said suit was for the relief of recovery of money seeking a direction to the defendants to make the payment of alleged arrears of salary of Rs. 20,10,125/- with interest thereupon, from the date of suit to the plaintiff.
2. The contention of the plaintiff was that, she was appointed on 25.6.1997 on temporary basis as a Teacher for a period of one year in Urdu Medium High School being run by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. On 01.12.1998, she was appointed as a full-time Urdu Assistant Teacher for Urdu Medium High School run by defendant No. 1. According to plaintiff, she worked in the said institution for more than 16 years as a Teacher. On the date 01.06.2015, the defendant-Institution orally terminated the services of the plaintiff without there being any reason and also without any written intimation. The reason assigned by the Management at the inquiry made by the plaintiff was that the very school itself was closed from 01.06.2015, as such, the services of the plaintiff could not be continued. According to the plaintiff, from 01.12.1998 till May 2015, as a Teacher, she has received a total salary of Rs. 4,73,700/- from the defendant-Institution when infact the defendants ought to have paid her a total amount of Rs. 24,83,825/-. Thus, there was a short payment of a sum of Rs. 20,10,125/- to the plaintiff, which she has claimed as arrears of salary. The plaintiff has further stated that several of her personal visits and oral requests with the defendants for the arrears of her salary did not yield any result and did not invoke any response from them, as such, she was constrained to issue a legal notice to the defendants on 14.09.2016 claiming the arrears of salary. However, the defendant-Institution gave an evasive reply on 29.09.2016, denying to meet the demand made by the plaintiff, which constrained her to institute the suit.
3. After the service of summons, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 filed their written statement which was adopted by defendant No. 1 by filing a memo. In its written statement, the defendants denied the plaint averments that the plaintiff was a full-time regular Teacher, entitled and eligible for the alleged arrears of salary as claimed by her.
4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed six issues. Among them, Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were treated as preliminary issues which read as below:
(1) Whether the defendants prove that the suit is barred under sections 94 and 96 of the Karnataka Education Act?
(2) Whether the defendants prove that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?
5. The Trial Court after hearing both sides on the said preliminary issues, by its impugned order dated 09.11.2020, while answering both the issues in affirmative, ordered that the suit was barred under sections 94 and 96 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for brevity “Education Act”) and that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Accordingly, the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Challenging the said order, the plaintiff in the Trial Court has preferred the present appeal.
6. In response to the notice, the respondents are being represented by their learned counsel.
7. Though the matter is listed in the admission list, however, with the consent from both sides, the matter is taken up for its final disposal.
8. During the pendency of this appeal, the respondents have filed photocopies of six documents, however, the Registry has raised an objection that the index sheet attached to the documents has not been signed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, it returned the said set of documents to the respondents. However, today since the learned counsel for the respondents has cured the said objections
