SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur has passed the judgment impugned without recording any evidence and without considering the affidavits available on record. No issue has been framed. On the basis of reply filed by the respondent, the Tribunal has proceeded to pass impugned judgment, more so, when the judgment of Tribunal is treated as a decree of the Civil Court for the purpose of execution in terms of Section 27A of the Rajasthan Non-Government Education Institutions Act of 1989.
(2.) Learned counsel points out that the Tribunal, while passing the judgment impugned, has not adopted the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules and it has passed the judgment contrary to the settled law. He has also pointed that in similar disputes being decided by the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, the procedure as followed in Civil Court of recording evidence and also the documentary evidence is being produced and proper opportunity to cross-examine the same is given. Even if the present case was one where enquiry was not conducted, opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner to prove the charges before the Tribunal but due to the procedure which is being followed presently, the petitioners have not been granted the chance to conduct enquiry and record the evidence before the Tribunal for charges on which the management took a decision to remove the respondent. Merely for non-compliance of Section 18 of the Act of 1989, the respondent could not have been granted consequential benefits and complete salary whereas there is every likelihood of the respondent working elsewhere.
(3.) Learned counsel has pointed out that the respondent had been appointed on contract basis and was directed to work in the Bal Ghar (creche) of the school where toddlers come, however, there was a report from the manager that the respondent was not performing her duties and was avoiding the work being asked to perform. She was cautioned but the complaints kept on pouring. Resultant decision was taken by the managing committee not to continue her contract and after paying salary in lieu of one month's notice, her services were dispensed with. Learned counsel submits that as she was on contract basis and her service could not be governed on the basis of Act of 1989 and the provision of sub-Section 18 would not apply.;