PER SHIV KUMAR SHARMA,J - (1.) AS identical questions of law and fact are involved in these Writ Petitions, I propose to dispose them by a common order.
(2.) SERVICES of the Employee -respondents (for short the 'employees ') were terminated by the employer petitioner (for short the 'employer ') vide orders dated November 9, 2000. The employees preferred appeals against the said orders of termination before the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Tribunal Jaipur (for short the Tribunal). Learned Tribunal vide judgments dated January 10, 2002 allowed the appeals. The employer in the instant Writ Petitions seeks to quash these orders dated January 10, 2002 of the Tribunal. Mr. A.K. Bhandari, learned Senior Advocate vociferously criticised the impugned orders and made following submissions. (i) The tribunal has committed serious breach of law in holding that the provisions of S.18 of the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short 1989 Act) are applicable to the instant matters. Mayo College is not affiliated to University or any authority of the State Government. It is not a recognised institution as defined in S.2(q) of the 1989 Act. Even otherwise Mayo College has framed the Rules for its employees and they are governed by these rules. (ii', Alternatively without prejudice to the above, the termination orders were based on the unanimous opinion of the Committee as the continuance of the employees was prejudicial to the interest of the institution. The employees were paid three months salary as contemplated under Rule 8 of the Rules and Regulations of the Mayo College and thereafter salary of another three months was deposited in the Bank Account of the employees. Thus provisions contained in S.18 of 1989 Act were fully complied with. lii) Relief of reinstatement cannot be granted to the employees as the Employer has completely lost his confidence in the employees.
(3.) THE case law on which reliance was placed shall be referred at appropriate juncture.;