1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner – management has challenged the impugned judgment dated 1.1.2015 delivered by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, by which the Appeal No.3/2009 filed by respondent no.1 – employee has been allowed and she has been granted reinstatement with consequential benefits from the date of her oral termination, which is 23.12.2008.

3. After considering the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides, I find that this case is a classic example of an unscrupulous employer exploiting a teacher employee, who has been working in the said school for more than five years.

4. The contention of Shri Godbole, learned Advocate for the petitioner – management, can be summarized as under:

a] Respondent no.1 – employee was allowed to work only to gain experience as a teacher.

b] She was inducted as an extra teacher only for the purpose of enabling her to gain experience.

c] There was no advertisement and no applications were called for.

d] She was not allowed to sign o