JUDGMENT :

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.232 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Pathanamthitta, against the dismissal of a suit filed for compensation against the respondents, as not maintainable.

2. The suit was filed by the appellant herein for realization of compensation of Rs.2,30,000/-. It was pleaded that the plaintiff, a retired English Lecturer, with 32 years of service, applied for a post of dean at the 1stdefendant College. He was selected after an interview with a salary of Rs.12,000/-. The plaintiff alleges that, without any notice, his services were terminated. Thus, his appointment, which was to be till 02.05.2010, was abruptly ended on 02.02.2009.

3. The first respondent College in the written statement filed contended that it was affiliated with the Mahatma Gandhi University, formed under the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, with the approval of AICTE. Thus, it was contended that no suit was maintainable under the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act.

4. The trial court considered the issue of maintainability, particularly with respect to Section 63 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act 1985, which bars the civil court's jurisdiction and held in favour of the defendant.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the petitioner is not a teacher within the meaning of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act and therefore Section 63will have no application. Consequently, Section 70also has no application. It is argued that the claim of the petitioner cannot be held to be barred, as he was not challenging the propriety of the order of termination, but he was claiming damages as he was prevented from working till 2010. It is also argued that even assuming that the Act creates a right, it does not provide a remedy, and the petitioner cannot claim a relief of compensation from the Tribunal. The learned counsel also relies on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Saraswati and Others v. Lachanna (Dead) through LRs. 1994 KHC 1107 to substantiate the said contention.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the very claim of compensation can be considered only if it is found that the termination is illegal, which, under the provisions of the Act, can only be considered by the Tribunal and therefore, the relief of compensation could not have been granted without first adjudicating as to whether the termination is legal or not.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the records.

8. 'Teacher' is defined under Section 2 (29) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, as follows.

“”Teacher” means a principal, professor, associate professor, assistant professor, reader, lecturer, instructor, or such other person imparting instruction or supervising research in any of the colleges or recognised institutions and whose appointment has been approved by the University”.

9. Section 63, which deals with the disciplinary powers of the Educational Agency over teachers of private colleges, certainly enables any teacher aggrieved by an order imposing on him any of the following penalties, namely, removal from service, compulsory retirement from service or dismissal from service, to attack the said proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal. Likewise, under Section 70 of the Act, which bars the jurisdiction of civil courts, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with or to