ORDER

1. The appellant is the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, established under the provisions of the Institute of Technology Act, 1961, which gives technical education of a very high standard to students. The Institute has a department known as "Aeronautical Engineering Department" in which technical education is imparted to students with respect to several aspects of aeronautics. For this purpose, the Institute owns two Piper aircrafts, one Cessna aircraft and one Hansa aircraft. We are informed by Mr. Ganguli, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, that these aircrafts are flown periodically and used for teaching several aspects of aeronautical engineering to the students.

2. Under the provisions of the Aircraft Act, 1934 read with the rules framed there under (the Aircraft Rules, 1937) all such aircrafts, even if they be privately owned, have to be maintained by qualified engineers licensed by the Director General of Civil Aviation (in short "DGCA") with regard to the type of aircraft they are required to maintain.

3. By an advertisement dated 23-12-1987 the appellant advertised several posts and one such post was the post of Maintenance Engineer (Aircraft). The qualification mentioned for eligibility to apply for the said post was BTech in Aeronautical or Mechanical Engineering. Respondent 1 applied in response to the advertisement. He was an AIME, recognised as equivalent to BTech or BE in the subject concerned and was also working in the Indian Air Force in the Maintenance Department. He also held certificates issued by the competent authority of the Indian Air Force that he was qualified to maintain HT 2, Dakota and Gnat aircrafts. The respondent was issued an appointment letter dated 20-9-1988. The appointment letter contained a probation clause .n the following terms:

"4. Probation.-Subject to the provisions of the rules and statutes, this appointment is made on probation for a period of one year and till the necessary certificates for maintenance of the Institute aircraft are obtained from the date of joining. However, the appointing authority shall have the power to extend the period of probation. The appointment a will be confirmed on permanent basis, after satisfactory completion of the probationary period." 4. This condition was stipulated because in order to be employed as Maintenance Engineer for the aircrafts possessed and used by the appellant Institute, the first respondent had to be licensed under the Aircraft Rules, 1937 for maintenance of such types of aircrafts. The letter of appointment t also called upon the first respondent to signify as to whether the offer of appointment was acceptable to him and to join duties. By a reply dated 3-11-1988 the first respondent accepted the terms of employment and stated inter alia:

"I shall abide by the terms and conditions given in the abovementioned appointment letter."

5. On 13-3-1989 the first respondent was issued a letter reminding him that he would have to obtain the necessary licence for maintenance of the aircrafts of the Institute and called upon to inform the authorities as to the progress made by him for obtaining the requisite maintenance licence. On 17 -3-1989 the first respondent sent a reply to the Dean, Aircraft Engineering Department informing him that under the DGCA Rules the examination for (Aircraft Maintenance Engineers are held twice a year; that the second examination was due in September 1989 in which he would appear; that he would submit his examination form in the month of July 1989 and that he was preparing for the said examination. Again by a letter dated 5-7-1989 the first respondent was reminded that as per clause 4 of his appointment letter his confirmation was subject to his obtaining the AME licence within a reasonable time and requested to intimate the progress made in the said direction. On 24-7-1989 the first respondent informed the Head, Aeronautical Engineering Department that he had already submitted his examination