JUDGMENT : Abhilasha Kumari, J. 1. Leave to amend the memorandum of Special Civil Applications Nos. 2322 of 2011 and 2323 of 2011 so as to add Article 227 of the Constitution of India is granted. The necessary amendment be carried out forthwith. 2. In this group of four petitions, two petitions, namely, Special Civil Application Nos. 2322 of 2011 and 2323 of 2011 have been filed by Khambhat Taluka Sarvajanik Kelavani Mandal Trust ('the Trust' for short) which runs educational institutions, under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders of the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) dated 15.11.2010, passed in Applications Nos. 62 and 63 of 1999, whereby the applications filed by the first respondents in both the petitions, who were employed in a College run by the Trust, have been allowed. 3. The other two petitions, being Special Civil Applications Nos. 3065 of 2012 and 3066 of 2012, have been filed by the employees. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3065 of 2012, Shri Melabhai R. Rabari, has prayed that the Trust may be directed to pay the legal dues for 34 (29+2+3) years' as retiral benefits, gratuity and Provident Fund, with interest at the rate of 18% and, further to pay the arrears of salary and difference of pay-scale for the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.05.2003, with all benefits and, further, to start family pension. Ms. Rekhaben S. Pandya, the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3066 of 2012, has prayed that the Trust may be directed to pay (18+9) = 27 years' retiral benefits, gratuity and Provident Fund with interest at the rate of 18%, and to pay all arrears of salary, higher pay-scale and other benefits, for twenty-seven years. 4. As the issues involved in all the four petitions are intrinsically interconnected, it is necessary to decide all the petitions altogether, by a common judgment. Hence, learned counsel for the respective parties have addressed common arguments for all the petitions. 5. In order to put the issues involved in the respective petitions in proper perspective, a brief factual background would be necessary. 5.1 The Trust, which is the petitioner in the above-mentioned two petitions and respondent in the petitions filed by the employees, is registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. 5. In order to put the issues involved in the respective petitions in proper perspective, a brief factual background would be necessary. 5.1 The Trust, which is the petitioner in the above-mentioned two petitions and respondent in the petitions filed by the employees, is registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It was running a Law College, namely, C.V. Shah Law College ('the College' for short) in Khambhat, since the year 1979. The said College was affiliated to Gujarat University. Shri Melabhai R. Rabari was working as a Peon in the said College since 07.06.1970 and Ms.Rekhaben S. Pandya was working as a Clerk since 01.07.1987. The Bar Council of India passed an order dated 20.08.1996, withdrawing the recognition to the College. Pursuant thereto, the Bar Council of Gujarat also withdrew its recognition to the College by an order dated 22.04.1998. In view of the above, the affiliation granted by the Gujarat University respondent No. 3 herein was cancelled and the College was required to be closed down. The Management of the College issued Show-cause Notices to both the employees dated 09.03.1999, for terminating their services, as it was not possible to continue any of the staff members due to the closure of the College. The services of the employees were terminated by separate orders dated 13.04.1999. The employees, therefore, approached the Tribunal by filing the above-mentioned applications, stating that the Trust had not followed the procedure under Ordinance 120E of the Gujarat University while closing down the College. They sought appropriate directions to be issued to the Trust to pay salary and allowances continuously to them. The above applications were allowed by the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal directing the authorities "to pay the salary to the applicants for the above-mentioned period". Aggrieved by the above order of the Tribunal, the Trust has approached this Court by filing the above-mentioned two petitions. On the other hand, the employees have filed the other two petitions, claiming the relief described hereinabove. 6. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties cover both the sets of petitions. The gist of the submissions is set out as below: 7. Ms. Mamta R. Vyas, learned advocate for the Trust which is the petitioner in Special Civil Applications Nos. 6. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties cover both the sets of petitions. The gist of the submissions is set out as below: 7. Ms. Mamta R. Vyas, learned advocate for the Trust which is the petitioner in Special Civil Applications Nos. 2322 of 2011 and 2323 of 2011, has submitted that: (a) The impugned orders of the Tribunal are vague regarding the date from which the salary is directed to be paid to the employees. No period is specified by the Tribunal. If the operative part of the said order is perused, it does not give any specific dates or details. The claim of the employees for salary beyond the date of the passing of the said order is, therefore, unjustified. (b) It is further submitted that the Tribunal had passed an interim order dated 05.07.1998, on the ground that the procedure under Section 120E of the Ordinance of the Gujarat University was not followed by the Trust. However, in spite of the said order, the employees have not reported to the College or performed their duties. This has been stated in an affidavit filed before the Tribunal. The employees have never led any evidence before the Tribunal to rebut the stand taken by the Trust in the said affidavit. Neither have they led any evidence to show that they were not gainfully employed elsewhere, in the interregnum. Though no dates are mentioned in the order of the Tribunal indicating the period for which salary is to be paid to the employees, they have not sought any clarification from the Tribunal or filed a petition challenging this part of the order. (c) It is next submitted that, as the employees have not worked after the termination of their services, they are not entitled to receive any salary. Further, in the petitions filed by them, they are claiming the relief of higher pay-scale, which is not available in an unaided private college such as the one run by the Trust. Insofar as the claim for retiral benefits is concerned, there was no scheme for pension in the said College, therefore, this relief, as well, cannot be granted to them. The employees were members of the Contributory Provident Fund, therefore, they cannot now claim the relief of getting the Provident Fund. Insofar as the claim for retiral benefits is concerned, there was no scheme for pension in the said College, therefore, this relief, as well, cannot be granted to them. The employees were members of the Contributory Provident Fund, therefore, they cannot now claim the relief of getting the Provident Fund. (d) Learned counsel for the Trust has further submitted that at the relevant point of time admittedly, the Management has not followed the procedure envisaged in Ordinance 120E of the Gujarat University, before the closure of the College. However, during the pendency of the petitions before this Court, the Trust has paid the amounts of gratuity to both the employees and the cheques for the same have already been encashed by them. It is submitted that insofar as the amount of compensation to be paid under the provisions of Ordinance 120E is concerned, the Trust has deposited two cheques of Rs. 25,000/- each for both the employees in the Registry of this Court. The Trust is ready and willing to pay the remaining amount of compensation, as well. (e) Learned counsel for the Trust has further contended that in the impugned order, the Tribunal has not quashed or set aside the termination of the services of the employees. Nor has it directed their reinstatement in service. The claim of the employees for salary from the period of termination upto date is, therefore, not justified. As no pension scheme was available in the Self-Financed College where the employees were working, their claim for pension is not admissible. (f) It is submitted that after the closure of the College, no student was admitted in the said College, therefore, the employees cannot be deemed to be in service throughout, as claimed by them. (g) It is contended that the prayers made by the employees before this Court regarding pension and Provident Fund have never been made before the Tribunal, therefore, the said prayers may not be accepted. (8) That, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the aspect that due to the closure of the College, the Trust is in financial difficulty, therefore, the direction to the Management of the College to pay the salary of the employees is unjust and improper. 8. On the other hand, Mr. (8) That, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the aspect that due to the closure of the College, the Trust is in financial difficulty, therefore, the direction to the Management of the College to pay the salary of the employees is unjust and improper. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Kaushal D. Pandya, learned advocate for the employees, has supported the order of the Tribunal by submitting that the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the aspect that the procedure under Ordinance 120E has not been followed by the Trust while closing the College, therefore, the Trust is liable to pay salary to the employees. 8.1 It is further submitted that the finding of the Tribunal that the procedure under Ordinance 120E has not been followed would mean that the employees are still in service. That being so, they are entitled to salary from the date of the order of the Tribunal, till the dates on which they would have superannuated in the normal course of their service, which is 31.05.2003, in the case of Shri Melabhai R. Rabari and 01.02.2008, in the case of Ms. Rekhaben S. Pandya. 8.2 It is further submitted that, as the Trust has failed to follow the procedure under Ordinance 120E, it cannot now agree to give compensation at this stage. The employees are justified in claiming full salary with allowances and retiral benefits as though they had continued in service till the respective dates of their superannuation. 8.3 It is further contended that it is not true that the employees did not go to the College to resume their duties after the Tribunal passed the interim order. The employees went there but were prevented from joining their duties. Once the Tribunal passes an order directing the applicants to join their duties and it is held that the Trust has not followed the necessary procedure, it means that the action of the Management in terminating the services of the employees without following the due procedure, is illegal and the employees are deemed to be in service. 8.4 It is further submitted that in Paragraph-5 of the order, the Tribunal has noted that the College has been closed down and the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Gujarat Affiliated Services Tribunals Act ('the Tribunals Act' for short) have not been followed. 8.4 It is further submitted that in Paragraph-5 of the order, the Tribunal has noted that the College has been closed down and the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Gujarat Affiliated Services Tribunals Act ('the Tribunals Act' for short) have not been followed. 8.5 That the Trust is running several colleges but it has not made any attempt to offer employment to the employees in other institutions run by them, which they ought to have done after the passing of the order by the Tribunal. The employees have put in about thirty-four years of service (in the case of Shri Melabhai R. Rabari) and 16 years of service (in the case of Ms. Rekhaben S. Pandya) respectively. The manner in which the services of the said employees have been terminated by the Trust is illegal, therefore, the prayers made in the petitions deserve to be granted. 9. Ms. Dhara Shah, learned advocate for Mrs. V.D. Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent Gujarat University, has submitted that the only role of the University is to grant and withdraw affiliation. Pursuant to the derecognition of the College by the Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Gujarat, the affiliation of the College run by the Trust has not been renewed. 9.1 It is further submitted that while closing the College, the Management was obliged to follow the provisions of Ordinance 120E of the Gujarat University. 10. Mr. Niraj Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has appeared in Special Civil Applications Nos. 2322 of 2011 and 2323 of 2011 and Ms. Snusha Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared in Special Civil Applications Nos. 3065 of 2012 and 3066 of 2012. It is submitted by Mr. Niraj Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, that the State is a formal party. However, it was incumbent upon the College to have paid the amount as per Ordinance 120E, to the employees. The same stand has been reiterated by Ms. Snusha Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader. 11. In the background of the above submissions, this Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length, perused the averments made in each of the petitions, contents of the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and the other documents on record. 12. It would be appropriate to deal with the challenge to the order of the Tribunal, in the first instance. 12. It would be appropriate to deal with the challenge to the order of the Tribunal, in the first instance. The Tribunal has noted, in the said order, that it is an admitted fact that the affiliation of the respondent College has been cancelled. However, the procedure required to be followed by the College as laid down in Ordinance 120E has not been followed. It is further noted that Section 14(1) of the Tribunals Act has also not been followed. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, it appears to be an undisputed fact that while closing down the College, the Trust has not followed the procedure as envisaged under Ordinance 120E. The relevant extract of the said Ordinance is reproduced herein below: "(vii) No management of an affiliated college shall (a) effect the closure of a college, (b) discontinuance of teaching of all the subjects comprised in any of the Faculties of a college, or (c) discontinuance of any of the classes or division thereof in any medium or media after the approval as envisaged above until and unless it has to the satisfaction of the University paid to the members of its staff which is retrenched, the compensation, provident fund dues and other lawful dues either under the University Act of Statutes, Ordinances, Rules or Resolutions made thereunder. (ix) That the compensation at the following rates is paid to all confirmed teachers: (a) Six months' pay (including all allowances), and (b) One month's pay including all allowances for every completed year of service to the teacher who has put in ten or less years of service and at the rate of one month's pay including all allowances for every completed year of services in excess of ten years, provided that the total compensation so payable shall not exceed 15 months' salary whichever is more. (x) Nothing in this ordinance shall be deemed to take away any right of compensation or any other protection which is afforded by the Gujarat University Act or any Statute or Ordinance, Rules or Resolutions made thereunder to which the member of the staff is entitled." 13. A perusal of the above extract of Ordinance 120E would go to show that the Management of an affiliated College such as the College run by the Trust, shall not close the College without complying with the conditions that have been laid down in the said Ordinance. A perusal of the above extract of Ordinance 120E would go to show that the Management of an affiliated College such as the College run by the Trust, shall not close the College without complying with the conditions that have been laid down in the said Ordinance. The salient conditions, as laid down in Clause (vii) as reproduced hereinabove, make it clear that the concerned College has to satisfy the University that it has paid, to the Members of staff who have been retrenched, the compensation, Provident Fund and other lawful dues under the University Act or Statutes, Ordinance, Rules or Resolutions. Clause (ix) provides for compensation to be paid at the rates specified therein. Clause (x) reiterates that the right to compensation cannot be taken away. The lawful dues under Ordinance 120E were, therefore, required to be paid by the Trust to the employees whose services were terminated due to the closure of the College. To this extent, there is absolute clarity in the order of the Tribunal. 14. Insofar as the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Tribunals Act that have been mentioned in the order of the Tribunal are concerned, a reference may be made to the said provisions which occurs in Part-III of the said Act under the heading "Procedure for Imposition of Penalty on College Employees". Section 14 of the Tribunals Act is reproduced as under: "Section 14: Dismissal, removal and reduction in rank of college employees (1) No college employee shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank nor shall his service be otherwise terminated by the manager of a college except after: (a) an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges, and (b) the action imposed against him is approved by the Vice-Chancellor of the relevant University: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any college employee who is appointed temporarily for a period less than a year. (2) The Vice-Chancellor shall communicate to the manager of the college in writing, his approval or disapproval of the action proposed, within a period of forty five days from the date of the receipt by the Vice-Chancellor of such proposal." 15. (2) The Vice-Chancellor shall communicate to the manager of the college in writing, his approval or disapproval of the action proposed, within a period of forty five days from the date of the receipt by the Vice-Chancellor of such proposal." 15. A perusal of the above provision indicates that before dismissing, removing or reducing in rank any employee of a College, the Management of such College is required to hold an inquiry in which the employee is informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Further, the action of the Management is supposed to be approved by the Vice-Chancellor of the relevant University. 16. Insofar as this provision of law is concerned, it applies to employees who have been dismissed or reduced in rank "or otherwise terminated". In the case of such employees, ratification of the approval of the action of the College is required to be granted by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. If the Vice-Chancellor does not grant the approval within the stipulated period of time of forty-five days, then the action is deemed to have been approved. In the present case, apart from a mention of this section in the prayer clause of the application filed by the employees before the Tribunal and in the order of the Tribunal, there is no discussion how it is applicable in the present case or what are the consequences of not following this provision. In view of the fact that the Tribunal has not discussed this provision or rendered any finding thereupon, apart from merely stating that the procedure under Section 14(1) of the Tribunals Act is not followed, this Court is not required to go into this aspect as, where there is no finding, there can be no adjudication. 17. After holding that the procedure under Ordinance 120E has not been followed, the Tribunal has stated as below: "6. ... Even otherwise without following the procedure, the service of an employee of the colleges (teacher) can not be terminated under the provisions of the Act. So, in the circumstances, I hereby allow the application of the Applicants and give direction to the Respondents authorities to pay the salary to the Applicants for the above mentioned period. In view of the above, the matter stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs." 18. So, in the circumstances, I hereby allow the application of the Applicants and give direction to the Respondents authorities to pay the salary to the Applicants for the above mentioned period. In view of the above, the matter stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs." 18. A perusal of the operative part of the order of the Tribunal indicates that it has allowed the applications of the employees and directed the Trust to pay the salary to the applicants "for the above-mentioned period". However, no specific period has been mentioned in the order at all. Further, it has not been stated that the Trust is to continue to pay the salary even after the passing of the order of the Tribunal, upto the date when the employees would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation had the College remained opened and functioning. The above directions of the Tribunal are quite vague and inspecific. As there is no clarity in the said directions, they are being read by the employees to mean that they ought to be considered to be in service throughout, even though the College has closed down in the year 1999. They claim that they should be considered to be employees of the College, even without working after its closure, till the date on which they would have superannuated had the college not been closed. 19. In the view of this Court, there is nothing in the order of the Tribunal to support such a claim. The interpretation of the order of the Tribunal, as is being made by the employee is not only unwarranted and unjustified, but it does not flow from a perusal of the said order, even considering that the order is vague in certain respects. The employees have, admittedly, not worked in the College after the termination of their services. The College has been closed down and there were no students. The claim of the employees to consider them as working in a closed college is, in itself, highly unreasonable one. It is obvious that the employees have not worked even for a single day after the College closed down, therefore, they have no right to claim salary without working. 20. The claim of the employees to consider them as working in a closed college is, in itself, highly unreasonable one. It is obvious that the employees have not worked even for a single day after the College closed down, therefore, they have no right to claim salary without working. 20. It is the case of the Trust that after the passing of the interim order by the Tribunal, the employees never presented themselves for duty, whereas the employees state that they did go there, but were prevented from joining. The above rival submissions are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court in the present petition. Learned counsel for the Trust has submitted that in the affidavit-in-reply filed before the Tribunal, this fact has been, however, no evidence was led by the employees to controvert the statement of the Trust that they have not joined their duties. It has been submitted on behalf of the employees before this Court, that they were prevented from joining their duties pursuant to the interim order of the Tribunal. However, it does not appear from the material on record that such a stand was taken by them before the Tribunal. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the employees have not worked in the College after the termination of the services, for the simple reason that the College, itself, had closed down and there was not a single student left in it after its recognition was withdrawn by the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Gujarat. The College stopped functioning and the affiliation granted by the University was cancelled. Under the circumstances, it is not open to the employees to say that they ought to be considered as employees of the College even after its closure. The factum of the closure of the College has led to the termination of the services of the employees. They cannot now claim to have worked upto the dates on which they would have superannuated, had the College remained functional. The claim of the employees is based on a hypothesis which is totally imaginary and unjustified. 21. It is not disputed that the procedure under Ordinance 120E is required to be resorted to, when a running College is closed down. The claim of the employees is based on a hypothesis which is totally imaginary and unjustified. 21. It is not disputed that the procedure under Ordinance 120E is required to be resorted to, when a running College is closed down. This Ordinance applies to employees, who are still serving and whose services have been terminated before they could reach their respective dates of superannuation. For this purpose, the mechanism envisaged under the said Ordinance provides that the Pension Provident Fund and other lawful dues are to be paid to the employees. This Ordinance does not mention retiral dues. From this, it is clear that the Ordinance applies to employees whose services have been abruptly terminated due to the sudden closure of the College, as has happened in the present case. 22. There is no doubt regarding the fact that the employees have been paid salary upto the dates of the termination of their respective services. After the termination of their services and the closure of the College, there can be no further claim for salary. The direction of the Tribunal, to this effect is, therefore, totally unwarranted and unjustified. It is nowhere mentioned in Ordinance 120E that failure to comply with its provisions would result in the reinstatement of the employee concerned. This cannot be so, as the Ordinance pertains to a College that has closed down. Under the circumstances, there can be no question of deemed reinstatement, as is being argued on behalf of the employees. 23. It is significant to note that the Tribunal has not held the termination of the employees to be illegal, or bad in law. Neither has the said termination been quashed and set aside. In this view of the matter, the vague directions to pay salary for an unspecified period, that have been issued by the Tribunal in the impugned order, are unsustainable in law. The employees are now claiming salary from 15.11.2010, which is the date of termination to the dates of their respective superannuation from service had the College not been closed down. In the view of this Court after the termination of their services, the employees would only be entitled to the benefits envisaged under Ordinance 120E of the University. They cannot claim salary after their termination upto the dates on which they would have superannuated, had the College not been closed. In the view of this Court after the termination of their services, the employees would only be entitled to the benefits envisaged under Ordinance 120E of the University. They cannot claim salary after their termination upto the dates on which they would have superannuated, had the College not been closed. Such relief claimed by the employees is based upon pure conjecture, not fact, hence cannot be granted. No legal ground, whatsoever, has been made out by learned counsel for the employees in respect of the claim made by the employees. 24. It is stated on behalf of the Trust that the amount of gratuity of the employees has already been paid. This statement is not disputed by learned counsel for the employees. Insofar as the claim for Provident Fund dues are concerned, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the Trust that the employees were members of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. There was no Scheme for Provident Fund. The contribution of the employees under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme can be repaid to them, if not already done, if they make an application before the concerned authorities. Moreover, no material has been placed on record on behalf of the employees to show that in the unaided College in which they were working, there existed any Scheme for pension. It has been specifically stated on behalf of the Trust that there was no Scheme for pension in the said College, which fact has not been controverted by learned counsel for the employees. Under the circumstances, the employees are not entitled to any pensionary dues. 25. There can be no doubt regarding the fact that the Trust ought to have paid the amount of compensation to the employees as per Ordinance 120E, at the time of the closure of the College. It has been stated that two cheques of Rs. 25,000/- each have been deposited in the Registry of this Court, but some more amount is required to be paid. As has been held earlier, the employees are only entitled to the amount of compensation under Ordinance 120E and not to any amount of salary or allowances, as directed by the Tribunal. They have been paid salary upto the date of their termination and no legal or vested right accrues to them to claim salary thereafter. As has been held earlier, the employees are only entitled to the amount of compensation under Ordinance 120E and not to any amount of salary or allowances, as directed by the Tribunal. They have been paid salary upto the date of their termination and no legal or vested right accrues to them to claim salary thereafter. The termination of the services of the employees has not been set aside by the Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal could not have issued directions to pay them salary, and that too for a vague and unspecific period. This part of the order of the Tribunal is unjustified and perverse. No reasons, leave alone any cogent reasons, have been advanced by the Tribunal in support of the above directions. 26. In view of the above discussion and for the aforestated reasons, this Court considers it just and proper to pass the following order: The Registry shall pay to the learned counsel for the employees the amount of Rs. 25,000/- each that has been deposited in it by the Trust, as mentioned in the order dated 22.03.2013, passed in Special Civil Applications Nos. 3065 of 2012 and 3066 of 2012, upon an application being made by him. The Trust shall pay the remaining amount of compensation at the rate envisaged in Ordinance 120E to the said employees, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of the order of the Tribunal till the date of the actual payment. The directions to pay salary to the employees in the impugned order of the Tribunal are quashed and set aside. The findings of the Tribunal regarding the non-compliance of Ordinance 120E of the Gujarat University by the Trust are upheld. The Trust is directed to pay the amount of compensation to the employees, as directed hereinabove, within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment. Special Civil Applications Nos. 2322 of 2011 and 2323 of 2011 are partly-allowed to the above extent. Rule is made absolute, accordingly, in both the petitions. The prayers made by the employees, in Special Civil Applications Nos. 3065 of 2012 and 3066 of 2012, are not accepted for the aforestated reasons. These petitions are, therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged, in both the petitions. Parties to bear their own costs.