SHARMA, J. - (1.) SMT. Kumud Singh, (abbreviated as `teacher' from herein) filed an application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (abbreviated as `1989 Act' from herein) before the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Tribunal Jaipur (abbreviated as `tribunal' from herein) claiming balance of salary, Provided Fund, Gratuity and Leave Encashment from Children's Garden Play School Education Society (abbreviated as `institution' from herein ). The Tribunal vide order dated August 28, 1997 allowed the application of Teacher. The Institution filed with petition against the said order in the High Court but learned Single Judge did not interfere with the order and dismissed the writ petition on September 8, 1998. In this Special Appeal, afore quoted orders have been assailed by the Institution.
(2.) THE only contention raised on behalf of the Institution was that since the Institution was not receiving any aid from the Government, provisions of 1989 Act and the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Conditions) Rules, 1993 (abbreviated as `1993 Rules' from herein) were not applicable to it. It was canvassed that according to Rule 82 of 1993 Rules only the employees of aided institutions are entitled to get the gratuity. Reliance is placed on Rajasthan Welfare Society vs. State of Rajasthan (2005) 5 SCC 275 = RLW 2005 (2) SC 219, Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' Association vs. Administrative Officer (2004) 1 SCC 755, State of Rajasthan vs. Sr. Secondary School Laxmangarh 2005 (1) WLC (SC) (Civil) 301, Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi 2005 (1) WLC (SC) (Civil) 3271 and Raghunath Raj vs. PNB 2007 (1) WLC (SC) (Civil) 668. Coming to the scheme of 1989 Act we notice that it was enacted to provide for better organization and development of education in Non Government Educational Institution in State of Rajasthan. Section 2 (p) defines "non Government Education Institutions" and the perusal of it would show that it embraces both the aided and non-aided institutions. Section 2 (q) defines `recognised Institution' and the definition embraces both the aided and non aided institutions. Section 2 (b) defines aided institution. Chapter-II provides for recognition of institution and empowers for prescription of terms and conditions for recognition. Chapter-III deals with Aid, Accounts & Audit. Chapter-IV provides for management committee and taking over of management by Government which applies to all recognised institutions. Similarly Sections 11 and 13 relate to management of properties and transfer of management and Section 14 relates to closure of institution, applies to all recognised institution. Sections 17 to 26 deal with recruitment of employees, their dismissal, removal and reduction in rank and termination, contracts by them and remedies before Tribunal and they apply to all recognised institution. Section 28 empowers for prescription of code of conduct of the employees of recognised institution. Similarly section 30 empowers inspection of recognised institution as to payment of salaries. Section 43 empowers the State Government to make Rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of 1989 Act. The State Government enacted 1993 Rules in exercise of powers conferred by Section 43 for regulating the Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and service conditions etc of Non-Government Educational Institutions. Conjoint reading of 1989 Act demonstrates except Chapter- III, which relates to grant-in-aid, all other chapters are applicable to all recognised institutions whether aided or non aided. Similarly Chapters V to VIII of 1993 Rules relate to various conditions of service deal with all recognised institutions except Rule 34 and 82. The 1989 Act and 1993 Rules prescribe and control the recruitment and various conditions of the employees of all recognised institutions whether aided or non-aided. Sections 16 and 29 of 1989 Act relate to only aided institutions. Legislature specifically made provisions giving authority to State Government and ensuring equality of salary with Government institutions. Rule making power of State Government has not been restricted to aided institutions only. A close look at 1989 Act and 1993 Rules shows that right from recruitment to retirement provisions have been enacted for governing the conditions of service of employees of non-aided institutions as well. Sections 16 and 28 of 1989 Act although relate to employees of aided institutions, they are not aimed negating the right of equality of employees of non-aided institutions or restricting the powers of State Government in the matter of governance of non-aided institutions. They gratuity is a benefit arising from past service and meant for relief and assistance after retirement or cessation of employment. No discrimination can be made on the ground whether the institution was receiving grant-in-aid or not. In view of the scheme of 1989 Act and 1993 Rules as discussed herein above, we find no merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. Even otherwise the order of Tribunal was scanned by learned Single Bench in its supervisory jurisdiction. In Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2003) 3 SCC 524 the Apex Court indicated thus:-      " The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision. " For these reasons we find no merit in the appeal the same accordingly stands dismissed without any order as to costs. . ;