JUDGMENT

K.B. Asthana, J. - This application in revision has been filed by the plaintiff who brought a suit against the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (hereinafter called the Institute) and its Director for a declaration that the order terminating his service was null and void and he be treated in service. He also prayed for recovery of his pay and allowances. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge as not maintainable but on appeal the order was modified by the learned Additional District judge who rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C. P. Code.

2. The Indian Institute of Technology existed as a registered society under the Societies Registration Act 1868 when the Institutes of Technology Act 1961 (Herein-after called the Act) was published in the Government of India Gazette on 20-12-1961 and came into force with effect from 1st April, 1962. The plaintiff applicant got his appointment and joined his post in the Institute before the commencement of the Act. Under Section 4 of the Act the Institute became a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal. Sec. 5 of the Act deals with the effect of the incorporation of Institutes. It lays down, inter alia, that on and from the commencement of the Act any reference to a society in any law or in any contract or other instrument shall be deemed as a reference to the Institute and that every person employed by a society immediately before such commencement shall hold his office or service in the Institute by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as to compensation, leave, gratuity, provident fund and other matters as he would have held the same if the Act had not been passed and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment is terminated or until such tenure, remuneration, terms and conditions, are duly altered by the Statutes. By a proviso it was said that if the alteration made by the Statutes was not acceptable to an employee his employment would be terminated by the Institute in accordance with the terms of the contract and if no provision was made therein this behalf, then on payment to him by the Institute of compensation equivalent to three month's remuneration in the case of permanent employees and one month's remuneration in the case of other employees. Sec. 6 of the Act empowers the institute to frame Statutes and Ordinances and to alter, modify or rescind the same. By its Section 17 the Act makes the Director as the principal academic and executive officer of the Institute responsible for the proper administration of the Institute. By clause (e) of Section 26 the terms and conditions of service of teachers and other staff of the Institute can be provided for by Statutes. Sec. 30 lays down how disputes arising out of a contract between an Institute and any, of its employees are to be decided. Since the argument of the learned counsel mainly turned on Section 30 of the Act it would be convenient to quote it.

"30. (1) Any dispute arising out of a contract between an Institute and any of its employees shall, at the request of the employees concerned or at the instance of the Institute, be referred to a Tribunal of Arbitration consisting of one member appointed by the Institute, one member nominated by the employee, and an umpire appointed by the Visitor.

(2) The decision of the Tribunal shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court.

(3) No suit or proceeding shall lie in any court in respect of any matter which is required by sub-sec. (1) to be referred to the Tribunal of Arbitration.

(4) The Tribunal of Arbitration shall have power to regulate its own procedure.

(5) Nothing in any law for the time being in force relating to arbitration shall apply to arbitration under this section."

3. It is not known whether any Statutes regarding terms and conditions of service of the teachers and staff of the Institute have been framed. The learne