The nature of an employment contract cannot be determined solely by the appointment order; attendant circumstances must be considered to ascertain the intention of the parties.

C. L. PANGARKAR, J.

( 1 ) THESE two Writ Petitions by management against the order of school Tribunal can be disposed of by common judgment since the facts in both the petitions are identical. ( 2 ) THE facts are as follows: petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and also a public Trust. Petitioner Society runs a Primary school, Secondary School and Junior college at Nagpur. All the employees of the school are governed by the Maharashtra employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Regulation Act, 1977. The Deputy director of Education Nagpur Region had granted permission to the petitioner to open first year Junior College during the Session 2003-04 on permanent no grant basis. Petitioner Society was therefore in need of the teachers for conducting those classes. Respondent No. 1 possesses a degree in Science and a degree in Education i. e. B. Sc. B. Ed. He was appointed initially by order dated 6. 8. 2004. Petitioner contends that the appointment of the respondent No. 1 was on clock hour basis and he was being paid honorarium. There was no question of his appointment being made under section 5 of the m. E. P. S. Act. He was also, therefore, not liable to be made permanent in terms of section 5 (2) of the said Act. A proposal for approval of the appointment of the respondent no. 1 was sent to the Director and information in form No. 8 was also sent to the Director. While sending the said information it was specifically mentioned in the said form that the appointment of the respondent No. 1 was only on clock hour basis. Respondent no. 1 was being paid initially Rs. 1000/p. M. as honorarium which subsequently came to be increased to Rs. 1500/p. M. Petitioner terminated the services of the respondent by order dated 27. 9. 2007. Feeling aggrieved by that respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the School Tribunal. It was the contention of the respondent No. 1 that he was appointed for a period of three years and after completion of two years he is deemed to have been confirmed in the said post and the management cannot go beyond the order of appointment issued by it. He contended that he has worked for a period of three years continuously and is therefore deemed to have been confirmed.

( 3 ) LEARNED Judge of the School Tribunal accepted this contention and directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 1. Feeling aggrieved thereby the management has preferred these Writ Petitions.

( 4 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. The material question that needs to be answered to my mind is whether the appointment order alone could be looked into to find out what was exactly the service contract or the attendant circumstances also can be looked into. Before dwelling on this aspect a few facts which are not in dispute may be narrated.

( 5 ) THE petitioner is a recognised school. The petitioner was granted permission to run Junior College (11th Standard) on permanent no grant basis for the first time in the year 2003-04. The'said permission continued upto 2006-07. Respondents-teachers were appointed as teachers vide appointment letter dated 6. 8. 2004. Their services were terminated by letter dated 27. 9. 2007. Appointment letter discloses that the appointment was for a period of three years. Appointments were made without issuing any advertisement.

( 6 ) SHRI Khan learned Counsel for the respondents-teachers contends that the parties are governed by the service contract in the form of appointment letter and the petitioner cannot resile from that. He submits that learned Judge of the Tribunal has rightly held that this appointment letter is the only thing that can be looked into since it is a service contract and any other communication between the management and others has no relevance. The learned Judge observes that the communication between management and the Deputy Director has no relevance and the letter of appointment is a service contract which is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document