We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

2. The Management of Indira Gandhi Balika Niketan, Senior Higher Secondary School, Ardwata, District Jhunjhunu, has filed this Special Appeal against the judgment of learned single Judge dated 26.07.2005, by which he has dismissed the writ petition, for quashing the order dated 28.11.2002 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur, setting aside the termination order of the respondent, and directing reinstatement with full back wages. Learned single Judge, after referring to the facts of the case, held that the scope of interference, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal is limited, and thus, dismissed the writ petition, upholding the findings of the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the Special Appeal, are that the appellant is an institution aided by the State Government, to the extent of 90% of its financial demand. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Lecturer in the Institution on 13.12.1988 in the pay scale of Rs. 1490-3550. She filed an application in the Tribunal on 11.07.1996 under Section 26 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act'), with the averments that the Institution started harassing her by levelling false allegations. Her salary was not paid regularly, and she was not allowed to sign in the attendance register. A notice was published against her with baseless allegation that she had abandoned the service. The Tribunal initially by order dated 04.07.2000, dismissed the application. The order of the Tribunal was challenged in the High Court, which allowed the writ petition on 25.09.2002, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal, with the direction to consider the matter afresh, in the light of the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act.

4. The Tribunal heard the matter and found that there is no provision of relieving an employee, or terminating his/her services on the ground that the employee had abandoned the employment, and thus a disciplinary enquiry was required to be held, in the circumstances, under Section 18 of the Act, in which the employee should have been given adequate opportunity to defend himself/herself. No such disciplinary enquiry was held. The Management decided on its own that the respondent-employee had abandoned the employment, and terminated her from service.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants also submits that the present Appeal was admitted, and notices were issued on 18.08.2005 on the ground that the respondent No. 1 had left the job herself on 24.02.1996, and that, thereafter, she joined the services in the year 2003, in an other Government school.

6. The operation of the impugned orders were stayed. The matter was, thereafter, taken up on several dates. On 23.02.2007, following orders were passed :

"It is informed to us that the respondent had already been selected by the Govt., of Rajasthan and has joined a Govt. School. Under the circumstance, we do not find this appeal of an urgent nature which can be given priority in hearing.

Admit on the limited question as to whether the respondent can be given back wages for the period during which she was out of service. Interim order of stay granted earlier, shall remain effective during pendency of this appeal."

7. It is submitted that the respondent No. 1 had abandoned the employment. She had no intention to come back. A first information report was lodged, alleging that she has taken away the answer-books of the practical examination. She did not care to attend the duties, even after filing a claim petition in the Tribunal.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the respondent No. 1 stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 26.07.2013. He has relied on Secretary, Akola Taluka Education Society & Anr. v. Shivaji, (2007) (9) SCC 564, in which it was held that the Tribu