KARNATAKA LINGAYAT EDUCATION SOCIETY v. KARNATAKA LINGAYAT EDUCATION SOCIETY’S COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

plaintiff was working in a private unaided institution under the management of defendant-Society. The defendant-Society has its own rules and regulations regarding service conditions of its employees and therefore, the same cannot be treated on par with the employees of the State Government and accordingly, it is stated in the written statement that the plaintiff is bound by the service conditions of the defendant-Society. It is also contended by the defendant that the suit is not maintainable - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6982 RSA No. 100910 of 2023 and that apart suit is barred by law of limitation. Hence, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

#5. The Trial Court, based on pleadings on record, has formulated issues and additional issues for its consideration.

#6. In order to establish his case, plaintiff was examined as PW1 and produced 04 documents, which were marked as Exhibits P1 to P04. On the other hand, defendant- institution has examined one witness as DW1 and produced 06 documents, which were marked as Exhibit D1 to D6.

#7. The Trial Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 08.04.2022 decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled for sum of Rs.6,72,284/- towards arrears of dearness allowance and the salary revision and Rs.21,216/- towards earned leave with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till its realization.

#8. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein have preferred appeal in R.A.No.36/2022 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court after re- appreciation of the material on record dismissed the appeal and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6982 RSA No. 100910 of 2023 confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellant-defendant has preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC.

#9. This Court admitted the appeal on 09.11.2023 and framed following substantial question of law: “Whether facts and circumstances involved in the case Rule 5 of the Karnataka Restitution (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978, and titles of the employees of the appellants Institution the Dearness allowance and other allowance on par with the Government employees who are Governed by the KCSR Rules?”

#10. I have heard Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and no representation has been made on behalf of respondent.

#11. Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Trial Court has committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff without considering the fact that the defendant-Institution is an unaided education institution covered under the provisions of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as “the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6982 RSA No. 100910 of 2023 Act”) He further emphasized that as the plaintiff is an employee of the education institution and as such, the plaintiff has to approach the competent authority under section 131, 132 and 134 of the Act. Referring to Rule 5 of the Karnataka Private Education (Discipline and Control) Rules 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”), it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the pay-scale of the employee of a private educational institution shall be corresponding to the post in the Government Education Institution, however certain benefits like DA, CCA, HRA and other allowances cannot be equated with that of the government employees. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the employees of the appellant-institution were appointed as per the rules and regulations of the appellant-society and therefore they cannot be equated with the government servants, who were governed under Karnataka Civil Service Rules (for short “KCSR”). He also refers to the appointment orders issued by the appellant-institution in favour of the respondent-plaintiff wherein it is clearly stated that the service rules and regulations of the appellant-institution is applicable to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6982 RSA No. 100910 of 2023 the service condition of the employees and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

#12. Nextly, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that, the Trial Court has committed an error in shifting the burden on the defendant-appellant herein to prove the entitlement of the respondent/plaintiff, which is quite strange and contrary to law. Hence, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant sought for interference of this Court.

#13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (Dead) through his LRs1 and argued that the judgment rendered by a Court having no jurisdiction is nullity in law. He also refers to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Others v. Dir. Health Services, Haryana and others2 and in the case of State of Punjab v. Labour Court Jullunder and others3 and argued that, if a Special Act is enacted for determining the rights of the ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) Judgment and decree dated 17.07.2023 passed by XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, RA - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6982 RSA No. 100910 of 2023 No.36/2022 and the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2022 in OS No.111/2018 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi, are hereby set aside. iii) Suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. iv) Amount in deposit, if any, by the appellant herein before this Court or before the Courts below be released in favour of the appellant – Institution. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5