ORDER : 1. The petitioners’ counsel is present and he submits that he is ready to submit his arguments on merits. Learned counsel for caveator respondents No.1 to 3 remained absent today also. The matter is pretty old. 2. The records disclose that right from the beginning the respondents’ counsel, on various occasions, continuously remained absent. This Court has noted the absence of the learned counsel for respondent on various occasions. Having found the above said circumstances, the case was posted for arguments on 06.03.2018. On that day a specific order was passed by this Court that if the respondents and their counsel remain absent on 09.03.2018, then the matter will be heard and disposed of on merits. On that day also the learned counsel for petitioner was ready to submit his arguments. In order to provide last opportunity to the learned counsel for respondents, the case was posted to 09.03.2018 and on that day the case was posted to 16.03.2018. On 09.03.2018 also the learned counsel for respondent remained absent. Today also they remained absent. There is no fun in further adjourning the case under the guise of providing opportunity to the respondents when the petitioners’ counsel has been consistently submitting that he is ready. Therefore, the Court has heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The petitioners have called in question the common order passed by the Member, Educational Appellate Tribunal and Principal District Judge, Belgaum, in E.A.T. Nos.2/009, 3/2009 and 4/2009 dated 30.06.2009 wherein the Educational Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeals declared that removal of the appellants by the respondent as illegal and the appellants are held to be in service as Lecturers on permanent and full time basis in respondent No.2 College, and also declared that the appellants are entitled for arrears of salary from 01.01.2009. 4. For the purpose of easy understanding and convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, it is just and necessary to retain the ranks of the parties as per their ranks before the Appellate Tribunal. 4. For the purpose of easy understanding and convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, it is just and necessary to retain the ranks of the parties as per their ranks before the Appellate Tribunal. The Education Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) has entertained the appeals of the appellants on the allegation that the appellants have been working as Lecturers and they were said to have been prevented from discharging their duties by oral direction of the respondents 1 and 2 and the said non-communication of any order of removal and preventing them from discharging their duties as illegal and for declaration which has been granted by the Tribunal. 5. The appellants have also claimed that the appellants have worked with the respondent No.2 as full time lecturers with effect from 20.06.2003, 20.06.1999 and 18.07.1999 respectively till December 2008 and in fact, the respondent No.1 institution is recognized by the competent authority for the purpose of imparting education to the students. The appellants have continuously worked as permanent lecturers in the respondent No.2 College. Subsequently, the Government has taken the decision to admit the said institution, i.e., the respondent no.1, to grant in aid. In order to defeat the rights of the appellants and also to make them unlawful gain the respondents 1 and 2 in violation of the Rules and Regulations directed the appellants not to sign the muster roll and not to attend the institution and virtually prevented them from signing the muster roll and attending the institution. Therefore, attributing the attitude of the management amounting to removal or termination of the appellants from their services, the appellants have approached the Tribunal for various remedies. 6. The respondent No.2 appeared before the Tribunal and contested the proceedings by filing statement of objections. It is the main contention that the appellants never worked with the respondents 1 and 2 at any point of time. The documents produced by the appellants were all fake documents, concocted and forged for the purpose of securing illegal appointment in the respondent No.2 institution. The respondent No.2 further alleged in the counter statement that it never issued any appointment order to the appellants much less the orders produced by the appellants before the Court and the appellants have played fraud by producing such fraudulent documents in order to persuade the Court. The respondent No.2 further alleged in the counter statement that it never issued any appointment order to the appellants much less the orders produced by the appellants before the Court and the appellants have played fraud by producing such fraudulent documents in order to persuade the Court. Therefore, they specifically claim that there is no relationship of employer and employee and as such they prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 7. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has framed the following points for consideration. (1) Whether the appeals filed by the appellants u/S 94 r/w Sec. 93 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, are maintainable? (2) What order? - - - 8. Answering the point no.1 in the affirmative, the Tribunal has proceeded to consider the matter on merits. As could be seen from the point for consideration absolutely no other points for consideration have been framed except the point regarding maintainability of the appeal. In this backdrop the Court has to see what findings that has been given by the appellate Tribunal so far as the maintainability of the appeal is concerned. The Court has ordered that it has got jurisdiction and appeals are maintainable. There is no dispute with regard to the said aspect because the appellants have claimed that they have been illegally terminated from the service. Sec. 94 of the Act invests the appellate jurisdiction on the Tribunal under certain circumstances. The said provision says that, ‘if any Teacher or other employee of a private educational institution who is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank may within three months from the date of communication of the order prefer an appeal to the Tribunal’. 9. Therefore, in this particular case, the appellants claim that they were prevented from discharging their duties signing the muster roll and not allowed the appellants to enter the premises of the respondents and that virtually amounts to termination of their employment by the respondent No.2. When the appellants treat the oral directions of the employer preventing them from discharging their duties amounts to their termination from service, against such orders appeals is maintainable. Hence, the order of the Tribunal to that extent is proper and correct. But, as could be seen from the records that, the Tribunal has not formulated any other points for consideration with reference to the order of termination or the real dispute between the parties. Hence, the order of the Tribunal to that extent is proper and correct. But, as could be seen from the records that, the Tribunal has not formulated any other points for consideration with reference to the order of termination or the real dispute between the parties. The Tribunal ought to have framed further points for consideration with regard to disputed relationship between the employer and employee and thereafter whether attitude of the employer amounts to termination of employment of the petitioners without any enquiry any order passed is invalid and thereafter what is the remedy available to the appellants before the Tribunal. Perhaps the respondents might have felt that the Court would proceed to give opinion with regard to the maintainability and therefore the respondents did not choose to go for trial. In my opinion, the Tribunal at the initial stages itself, has committed an error in disposing of the appeal considering all the grounds urged by the appellants without formulating necessary points for consideration, and further formulating the only point with regard to the maintainability. 10. Now coming to the next question, whether even on merits of the case whether the Tribunal has conducted itself in proper manner according to the procedure established under law. Admittedly, it is an appeal filed by the appellants there was no original proceedings taken place, i.e., any disciplinary enquiry initiated by the management against the appellants. In such an eventuality the option open to the appellate authority either to remand the matter to the management for to conduct enquiry against the delinquent employees, if it finds that there was relationship of employer and employee exists between the parties. 11. The next option open to the appellate Tribunal is to permit the parties to produce necessary documents relied upon by them and to adduce evidence providing opportunity to both sides to contest the proceedings in accordance with law by cross examining the witnesses and as well as questioning the documents produced before the Court. 12. It goes without saying that the provisions of CPC so far as the appeals are concerned are made applicable as per Sec. 96(3)(b) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The said provision makes it abundantly clear, it reads thus:- SEC. 12. It goes without saying that the provisions of CPC so far as the appeals are concerned are made applicable as per Sec. 96(3)(b) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The said provision makes it abundantly clear, it reads thus:- SEC. 98 (3) (b) – shall for the purposes of the disposal of the appeals referred under this Act have the same powers as are vested in a Court of appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act of 1908) - - - 13. Therefore, if for any reason, the appellate Court does not remand the matter to the disciplinary authority, then it assumes jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry. For all practical purposes, the documents produced before the Court by either of the parties shall be ordered to be taken as additional evidence produced before the appellate Court and if the parties want to lead any evidence that should be treated as evidence as if recorded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal has to follow all the procedures that are contemplated under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC in entertaining the documents or the further evidence or additional evidence which the Tribunal feels just and necessary that, those documents and evidence are necessary for adjudication of the rights of the parties. 14. Order 41 Rule 27(b) further empowers the Court that the appellate Court requires any documents to be produced or any witnesses to be examined to enable to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause those evidence may be allowed to be provided. Therefore, in this particular case when the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appeal is maintainable then the Tribunal has to give a finding whether the documents which are produced before the Court are necessary for proper pronouncement of the judgment in order to advance substantial justice between the parties. Order 41 Rule 28 and 29 of CPC also envisages as to how the additional evidence can be taken by the appellate Court either itself can record the evidence or send it to any Subordinate Court. Here in this case, there cannot be any subordinate Court, therefore, the appellate Court is bound to take evidence in accordance with law. Thus, the said procedure, in fact, has not been followed by the Tribunal in this particular case so as to provide opportunity to both the parties to establish their case. 15. Here in this case, there cannot be any subordinate Court, therefore, the appellate Court is bound to take evidence in accordance with law. Thus, the said procedure, in fact, has not been followed by the Tribunal in this particular case so as to provide opportunity to both the parties to establish their case. 15. In the above said context, the application of Evidence Act also should have been borne in mind by the Tribunal with reference to how the pleadings of the parties and the documents that are produced before the Court can be proved in accordance with. It is well recognized principle of law that mere production of documents before the Court cannot be proof of those documents, though those documents are original in nature or they are primary in nature. Even primary document or evidence is placed before the Court that requires to be tested by means of providing opportunity to the other side to examine the witnesses who produced those documents with regard to the genunity of those documents and whether they are legally admissible in evidence and available to the Court for appreciation. 16. In this particular case those statutory principles also not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal which is bereft of any proof of pleadings and documents, is not sustainable either in law or on facts. 17. Now reverting to the factual matrix of this case. It is clear from the objection statement filed by the respondents that, they have altogether denied the relationship as employer and employee and they stoutly denied that, the appellants are the employees of the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the pleadings of the appellants that they are the duly appointed employees of the respondents 1 and 2 has to be proved by leading evidence, their pleadings will remain as pleadings without any proof unless supported by evidence. It is further case of the respondents that the documents which are produced and relied upon by the Tribunal are all alleged to be forged and fake documents and those documents are concocted by the appellants for the purposes of wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the management. 18. It is further case of the respondents that the documents which are produced and relied upon by the Tribunal are all alleged to be forged and fake documents and those documents are concocted by the appellants for the purposes of wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the management. 18. It is the further case of the respondents that, the appellants were all working in some other institution, as soon the Government has taken steps to grant financial aid to the respondents 1 and 2 institution in order to secure their jobs and in order to gain entry into the institution of respondents 1 and 2, the appellants have created and concocted those documents and produced the same before the Tribunal. When such a stout denial was made by the respondents 1 and 2 with regard to the relationship and as well as relief available to the appellants before the Court, on the basis of such fake documents it was bounden duty of the Court to follow the relevant procedures by adhering to the principles of natural justice to provide opportunity to the respondents to question the said documents by due process of law and procedure. Therefore, in my opinion, without examining the appellants and marking those documents and thereafter providing opportunity to the respondents to question the genunity of the documents during the course of cross examination, the judgment of the Tribunal is bereft of following principles of natural justice. Therefore, for the above said reasons, I am of the opinion, the order passed by the Tribunal impugned under the writ petitions, are liable to be set aside and the matter requires to be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh enquiry into the matter in the light of the observations made in the body of this order. Hence, the following order is passed. ORDER Petitions are allowed. consequently, the judgment passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal And Principal District & Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in E.A.T. Nos. 2, 3 and 4/2009 dated-30.06.2009 are hereby set aside. All the above appeals are restored on to the file of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Belgaum, to frame appropriate points for consideration after hearing the parties and provide opportunity to both the parties to establish their claims and thereafter providing opportunity to submit their arguments and decide the appeals in accordance with law.