D.A.V.PUBLIC SCHOOL Vs. UMAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The undisputed facts are f that the respondent -plaintiff Umawati was appointed Junior teacher in D A. V Public School, Barmana, District Bilaspur -appellant -defendant (hereinafter called the School") on 12th May, 1985 vide appointment order, Ex. P -B on probation for a period of one year with effect from 12th August, 1985 ; that before she could complete the probation period, she was informed vide Memo dated 11th July, 1986, Ex. P -D, that her probation period was extended until further orders and thereafter on 15th July, 1987, she was served with termination notice. Ex. P -E, that she stood relieved from her duties with effect from the same day, that is, 13th July, 1987.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved Umawati filed an application before the District Conciliation Officer, Bilaspur. challenging her termination to which reply dated 20th August, 1987, Ex. DC, was filed on behalf of the School. But the Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, intimated Umawati by his letter dated 20th August, 1987 that Teaching Institutions and the staff working therein are not covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hence his office could not intervene in her matter.

(3.) Thereafter, Umawati gave legal notice dated 9th December, 1987, Ex P H, through her Counsel ah Rattan Lai Sharma, Advocate, Bilaspur to the School and when no reply was received, she filed civil suit for declaration that the order of termination dated 15th July, 1987 was illegal, wrong and without jurisdiction and she continued to be a teacher in the School and also for damages of Rs. 20.000. The suit was resisted on behalf of the School and besides raising a number of preliminary objections, on merits, its stand was that the services of Umawati could be terminated as she was on probation and was not confirmed as alleged by her. Her claim for damages was denied. The defence of the School did not find favour with the trial Court which decreed the suit holding that the maximum period of probation as stated in the appointment letter was for one year, which could not be extended and on its expiry Umawati was deemed to be a confirmed teacher and could not be terminated as probationer These findings were affirmed by the Additional District Judge in an appeal filed by the School. Hence the present Regular Second Appeal.