Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.- The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24th March, 1995 (Annexure-5) passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (“Tribunal”) whereby the termination order dated 6th May, 1994 was set aside, but the petitioner was denied back wages for the period in question till she joins service in pursuant to order dated 25th March, 1995 and so also the suspension order dated 28th March, 1995 (Annexure-11) and the charge-sheet dated 12th April, 1995 (Annexure-18). 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Teacher on 20th June, 1983 and her services were terminated vide order dated 6th May, 1994 (Annexure-2) which was challenged by her by filing Appeal No. 145/94 before the Tribunal. 3. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties partly allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 24th March, 1995 (Annexure-5) and termination order was set aside, but the back wages were denied to her on the premise that she was working as Chief Patron of Sapling Kinder Garten School, In pursuant to order of the Tribunal dated 24th March, 1995, the petitioner joined service on 25th March, 1995 and after joining service, she was suspended vide order dated 28th March, 1995 (Annexure-11) and also served with the charge-sheet dated 12th April, 1995 (Annexure-18). Hence, this petition. 4. Shri A.K. Bhargava, Counsel for petitioner urged that once the order of termination has been found to be illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice, as a consequence thereof , the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and denial of back wages by the learned Tribunal is contrary to settled principles of law and the same deserves to be quashed. 5. It has been further submitted that mere working as Chief Patron of the Institution will not hold her to be gainfully employed and the fact situation on which the learned Tribunal has proceeded in denying the back wages is contrary to principles of law and to this limited extent the order deserves to be quashed. 6. He has further questioned the order of suspension dated 28th March, 1995 and so also the charge-sheet dated 12th April, 1995. According to him, these orders were issued as a vindictive attitude of the respondents so that she may voluntary leave the job. 6. He has further questioned the order of suspension dated 28th March, 1995 and so also the charge-sheet dated 12th April, 1995. According to him, these orders were issued as a vindictive attitude of the respondents so that she may voluntary leave the job. In support of his contention, Counsel placed reliance in the case of Abhinash Chandra Gautam vs. Union Territory of Tripura 1984 (Supp) SCC 551. 7. Shri B.L. Gupta, Counsel for respondents, who is appearing for respondents No. 5 and 6, have filed reply to the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner was working as Chief Patron of Sapling Kinder Garten School which was opened by her simultaneously when her services were dispensed with. In support of his submission, Mr. Gupta submitted that once she was gainfully employed while working as Chief Patron of the Institution, the learned Tribunal has rightly denied the back wages to the petitioner and no error has been committed in the order impugned. 8. It has also been submitted that so far as questioning the validity of orders of suspension dated 28th March, 1995 and charge-sheet dated 12th April, 1995 are concerned, if at all the petitioner is found to be aggrieved, she has alternative remedy of appeal before the Tribunal, but the fact is that she has not reported on duty after charge sheet was served on her. 9. I have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Counsel for petitioner has not disputed the fact that the petitioner is working as Chief Patron of Sapling Kinder Garten School, which was also simultaneously opened by her when her services were terminated vide order dated 6th May, 1994. 11. The learned Tribunal after taking note of all the documents placed on record recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner was gainfully employed while working as Chief Patron of Sapling Kinder Garten School and taking note of the same considered proper not to grant back wages to the petitioner for the period in question. I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in denying back wages to her and holding the post of Chief Patron in the Institution is a gainful employment and certainly the onus was on the petitioner to satisfy about her nature of employment which she failed to do so. 12. I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in denying back wages to her and holding the post of Chief Patron in the Institution is a gainful employment and certainly the onus was on the petitioner to satisfy about her nature of employment which she failed to do so. 12. The Judgment on which Shri Bhargava has placed reliance in the case of Abhinash Chandra Gautam (Supra), was a case where discharge from service was found to be invalid and it was observed that the incumbent is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and fact came on record that she served as Teacher and her monthly salary of Rs. 100/-which was not considered to be a case of gainful employment but in the facts of present case the petitioner held the post of Chief Patron of the institution and while serving under the aforesaid School, it cannot be said that she was not gainfully employed and in my opinion, the Judgment cited by the Counsel for petitioner does not render any assistance. This has been settled by apex Court and so also the decision referred to above where the domestic inquiry found to be unfair and order impugned/final decision is in violation of principles of natural justice consequence thereof is that the incumbent has to be reinstated in service apart from exception incumbent is entitled for back wages. But where it has been brought on record before the Tribunal and not disputed that she was employed while holding the post of Chief Patron of the institution, in my opinion, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal for denial of back wages to her. 13. So far as validity of order of suspension dated 28th March, 1995 and charge-sheet dated 12th April, 1995 is concerned, the petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal before the learned Tribunal. 14. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.