Judgment : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 2. The brief facts are as follows:- The petitioner is a registered society which has established and manages a school known as English Nursery, Primary and High School and Samskritha Pathashala in Bangalore. The respondent who was employed as a nursery teacher in the Nursery School run by the petitioner-Management against a leave vacancy of one Smt. Leelavathi Bai for the period upto March 1985 or till such time Smt. Leelavathi Bai reported for duty. The respondent was reappointed by an order dated 7-6-1986 on temporary basis. She was also appointed as a part-time Clerk in the Nursery School by an order dated 3-10-1992. She was offered a letter of appointment as a part-time Clerk in the Nursery School by a further letter dated 30-7-1994. This was on account of the fact that one section of the Nursery School was closed down on account of want of student strength. The respondent was later transferred to the Nursery School during November 1994. It is further stated that on 11-7-2002, the respondent was served with a show-cause notice informing the decision of the Board of Management to relieve her from services. This was challenged before the Labour Court by the respondent. The petitioner had appeared before the said Court and had raised an objection that the respondent was an employee in a Private Educational Institution and therefore, a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could not have been raised. The respondent thereafter, withdrew the dispute before the Labour Court and preferred an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, in turn, had entered appearance before the Tribunal and opposed the appeal. It was contended by the petitioner that the respondent was the junior most employee of the Nursery School and had produced the list of employees of the Nursery School to evidence this circumstance and it was further contended that she was appointed purely on a temporary basis. The Tribunal, after holding a trial, by its order dated 22-12-2006 allowed the appeal. It is that which is sought to be challenged in the present petition. 3. The Tribunal, after holding a trial, by its order dated 22-12-2006 allowed the appeal. It is that which is sought to be challenged in the present petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that during the academic year 2002-03, one section of the Nursery School, which the respondent was handling had to be closed down, as there was no adequate student strength and she was accordingly relieved from service on 31-10-2002 and since there was an increase in the workload in the subsequent academic year namely 2005-06, one person was newly appointed. This was three years after the respondent was relieved from her service. Inspite of it, the Tribunal had observed that the bona fides of the Management are doubted, since it is admitted that a fresh appointment has been made in the place of respondent and therefore, the intention of the Management was to punitively terminate the services of the respondent without being preceded by an enquiry and therefore, the same was bad in law. 4. The learned Counsel would assert that though it was vehemently contended that the respondent was a temporary employee and had been discharged from service by an order of discharge simpliciter without there being any stigma cast on the respondent nor by way of punishment, the Tribunal having concluded that the respondent was a permanent employee under the petitioner, proceeding on that basis has held that the respondent was a permanent employee and could not have been removed from service without an enquiry conducted against any alleged misconduct. Therefore, directed that the respondent be reinstated with all consequential benefits. 5. The learned Counsel would assert that the bona fides of the petitioner has also been suspected on the basis of overwriting in the Attendance Register Extract that was produced to demonstrate that one section namely, ‘B’ Section of the Nursery School in which the respondent was engaged had to be closed. This has been disbelieved only on the basis of the said Attendance Register extract, which is wholly unfair. The learned Counsel would further submit that the Attendance Register in fact, has been produced before this Court and from a perusal of the same, it is evident that the ‘B’ Section of the Nursery School did not function during the academic year 2002-03 as is evident from the Attendance Register, which would clearly demonstrate this circumstance. The learned Counsel would further submit that the Attendance Register in fact, has been produced before this Court and from a perusal of the same, it is evident that the ‘B’ Section of the Nursery School did not function during the academic year 2002-03 as is evident from the Attendance Register, which would clearly demonstrate this circumstance. Therefore, the suspicion on which the Tribunal has proceeded and has held in favour of the respondent, is bad on account of two reasons. Firstly, the Tribunal has not given a finding as to whether the respondent was a permanent employee of the Institution. Secondly, merely on suspicion that the petitioner had tampered with the Attendance Register extract to presume that there were mala fides on the part of the respondent and to impose the respondent on the part by directing the Management to pay huge backwages and apart from reinstating her into service, when the petitioner no longer needs the services of the respondent. It is this which is sought to be urged primarily in the writ petition. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that thee was a clear admission by the management witness before the Tribunal that the respondent was removed in the middle of the academic year. This would belie the contention of the petitioner that the ‘B’ Section of the Nursery School in which the respondent was employed had been closed, though it had continued to function till the end of the academic year 2001-2002. This is evident from the very Attendance Register which is produced. Therefore, the respondent having been discharged from service with an observation that she had acted against the interest of the students was clearly stigmatic and even if it could beheld that the respondent was not declared to be a permanent employee, the fact that she was admittedly employed with the petitioner for over 18 years, cannot be characterized as a temporary employee and therefore, there was no requirement of the Tribunal having arrived at a finding in this regard when the circumstance speaks for itself. 7. 7. The learned Counsel would therefore, submit that when the removal of the respondent was not preceded by an enquiry, the law is well-settled that when the removal from service is attended by a circumstance that stigma has been east in the order of removal from service and further, when it is evident that such removal was by way of punishment, the requirement of an enquiry preceding such removal is mandatory and this is the legal position that is authoritatively settled by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Management of M.S. Ramaiah Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore v. Dr. M. Somashekar (2004 (1) Kar.L.J.532 (DB) : ILR 2004 Kar.37 (DB)), which has, on a review of the case-law, declared the legal position which is clearly in favour of the respondent. 8. The learned Counsel would also submit that the document which has been produced before the Tribunal namely, the Attendance Register extract clearly contains overwriting and it cannot be characterized as a suspicion on the part of the Tribunal when it is evident that the petitioner has acted mischievously with the sole intention of removing the respondent from service and has employed the ploy of having closed down the section, in which the respondent was employed, purely for purposes of sustaining its illegal action. 9. The learned Counsel would point out that as evident from the Attendance Register, which is now produced before the Court, the section was not closed down during October 2002, to coincide with the removal of service of the respondent. Therefore, it does not require an elaborate trial to establish that the respondent has been punished by way of removal, apart from casting a stigma by holding that she had acted against the interest of the students. The removal from service being clearly illegal, the judgment of the Tribunal directing reinstatement with the backwages is in order and does not warrant interference by this Court. 10. In any event, the learned Counsel would submit that this Court is not sitting in appeal over the judgment of the Tribunal and to re-examine or re-appreciate the evidence on record would be without the scope of judicial review and hence would submit that findings of the Tribunal being based on material evidence do not warrant interference by this Court and therefore, he would submit that the petition be dismissed. 11. 11. Given the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner had consistently taken the stand that the respondent was a temporary employee, even if she was employed for over a long period. Though the petitioner-Education Institution is an aided Institution, the Nursery Section of the School is not aided and since the respondent was employed in the Nursery Section of the School is not aided, there would not be any independent records to establish that she was indeed either a permanent or a temporary employee. The dispute being with reference to the status of the respondent, the Tribunal has not thought it fit to give any finding on this aspect of the matter. Apparently, it has proceeded on the basis that since it was not in dispute that the respondent was employed for a long period of time, the respondent’s status should be assumed to be permanent. This cannot be. Therefore, the Tribunal would be required to give finding as to the status of the respondent, in the face of stiff opposition by the petitioner on the aspect of her status. Secondly, the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis of the Attendance Register Extract and not the actual attendance Register to conclude that the petitioner had not come to Court with clean hands and apparently, had tampered with the record to contend that the section in which the respondent was employed was closed down, whether the same was continued, even after the respondent was removed from service for several months and if any other teacher was employed in the section in the place of the respondent, is also not a fact that has been found in concluding that the respondent has been removed from service unlawfully and as a matter of punishment. In the absence of any such finding, the mere fact that the respondent had been removed from service in October 2002, it would not follow as a matter of course that students of that section were not transferred to another section. This ought to have been examined further with reference to the relevant records. Secondly, the Tribunal having concluded that the removal of the respondent ought to have been preceded by an enquiry would apply in respect of a permanent employee. 12. This ought to have been examined further with reference to the relevant records. Secondly, the Tribunal having concluded that the removal of the respondent ought to have been preceded by an enquiry would apply in respect of a permanent employee. 12. The learned Counsel seeking to place reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench in M.S. Ramaiah Medical College’s case would not apply to the present case on hand. The said judgment does not lay down that even in case of a temporary employee. If the removal from service is casting a stigma on the employee, it ought to be preceded by a domestic enquiry. Therefore, on that ground also, the Tribunal cannot be justified in holding that the respondent could not have been removed from service. It is to be found that the Tribunal had not granted any interim order of stay nor it had directed the petitioner to pay subsistence allowance during the pendency of the petition. Therefore, in allowing this petition and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration in the light of the above observations and in order that findings be arrived at on the above aspects, there is no warrant for directing payment of any interim benefits to the respondent during the pendency of the enquiry. The Tribunal shall issue fresh notice to the parties and shall hold a fresh enquiry while affording liberty to both the parties to tender any additional evidence if necessary and then to pass an appropriate order.