The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's jurisdiction to interfere with findings of fact is limited unless the findings are palpably wrong on facts or in law or tainted by perversity.

1. This writ petition challenges order, dated 26th April, 2014, passed by the learned Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), on an appeal preferred, before it, by the respondent herein.

2. The respondent approached the Tribunal, submitting that he had been working with the petitioner-School (hereinafter referred to as “the School”), as Assistant Teacher since 1999, without interruption, on meagre wages of Rs. 3,500/- per month, without being paid benefits under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 or the Employees’ Provident Funds Act, 1952 and was not being allowed to sign on the attendance register. His case was that, on his protesting there-against, he was orally terminated, by the School, on 3rd April, 2014.

3. The respondent submitted that this termination, which had been effected without any show cause notice, charge-sheet, inquiry or any prior opportunity of personal hearing, was ex facie illegal.

4. The school contended, per contra, before the learned Tribunal, that it had never appointed the respondent as Assistant Teacher, and there was no employer-employee relationship between the respondent and the School. Neither, it was submitted by the petitioner, did any privity of contract exist between them. The respondent’s name, it was further pointed out, did not figure on the petitioner’s muster rolls. The documents filed by the respondent, in support of his claim of being an employee of the petitioner, were alleged to be “false and frivolous”. In these circumstances, the petitioner sought to contend that, the Respondent not being its employee, there could be no question of termination, of his services, by the Petitioner.

5. In rejoinder, the respondents submitted that the Petitioner was maintaining double records. The learned Tribunal, in the impugned order dated 26th April, 2017, has returned the following findings:

(i) The Respondent had produced, in support of his claim of employment under the Petitioner,

(a) photographs of the attendance-sheets for different years, in which the Petitioner’s name was entered, against which he had signed,

(b) sheet results of students, which too, bore his signature,

(c) photographs of the respondent, with the staff of the school, and

(d) photographs of the respondent conducting classes.

(ii) The Directorate of Education (DOE) had conducted an inquiry into the matter, the Inquiry Report, whereof, confirmed that the Respondent was the employee of the Petitioner, and that, the Petitioner was, indeed, maintaining double records. I may, for this purpose, reproduce paras 4 and 5 of the Inquiry Report, which contain the evaluation, by the Inquiry Officer, of the documents, and the conclusion arrived at on the basis thereof:

“Evaluation of the documents –

From close perusal of the documents i.e. photographs of the school staff placed in the file at Page No. 39/c, copy of the Attendance Register for the month of Nov, 2011, copy of the SLC in R/o a student Akhil Shukla dt. 09.07.2009, copy of the result sheet in r/o a student Renu Dixit for 2005-2006 placed at Page No. 36/c to_copy of the Attendance Register for the month of Feb, 2013 placed at Page No. 38/c to _copy of the SLC in r/o Pooja Kumari dt. 07.04.2008, copy of the salary slip in r/o Sh. S.C. Gupta placed at Page No. 34/c copy of the result sheet in r/o Sashi Diwakar, Class VIII-C, student, dt. 30.03.2005, it is found that there is a signature of the said Sh. S.C. Gupta on the said document while the photograph of the staff support his claim as employee of the school.

On the other hand, the document provided by the school, there is no any sign of his being an employee of the school.

It may be seen that, copy of staff Attendance Register for the month of Feb, 2014 to April, 2014 & Nov, 14, the name of the complainant does not appear. As such statement of the students made by them before the Inquiry committee, it can not be denied that they might have been tortured not to speak the truth while the staff of the