«
age 35 years, occupation - service,
) Respondent
resident of 1200 Sadashiv Peth,
)
Pune 411 030.
)
The appellants above-named submit this memo of appeal, praying to state as follows:
(A)T
hat the respondent was appointed at the appellant institute
as a Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering, by an order dated
and he took over the charge on .
(B)
That the appointment of the respondent was on contractual
basis for the period of one
year only.
(C)
That another appointment-letter was issued on
__b
y
which the respondent was appointed for another two years on contractual basis, and as per this appointment order, the respondent was requested to communicate the acceptance of the said appointment before the end of June 200_
(D)
That the respondent, however, did not communicate his
acceptance of the said appointment order, and since the
respondent did not do so, the services of the respondent stood
terminated on _
(E)
T
hat the respondent also informed the appellant institution
that he was not interested in the service and he was, therefore,
leaving his job.
(F)
That, thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal No. PU/25/
2003 before the Presiding Officer, Pune University Tribunal,
Pune, and the said Learned Tribunal was pleased to allow the
said appeal of the respondent, and it was further ordered that
the appellants should pay unto the respondent salary including
all allowances with effect from
being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order, dated
passed in the appeal No. PU/25/2003, by the Learned
Presiding Officer, Pune University College Tribunal, Pune, the present appellants prefer this appeal against the same on the following amongst the other grounds of objections thereto:
1.
That the Learned Lower Court has not followed the proper procedure,
and this has resulted into miscarriage of justice.
2.
That the orders passed by the Learned Lower Court are violative of
the principles of justice, equity and good conscience.
3.
That the orders passed by the Learned Lower Court are contrary to
the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice.
4.
That the Learned Lower Court has failed to consider the evidence on
record in a judicious manner.
5.
That the findings arrived by the Learned Lower Court are not
supported by the evidence on record.
6.
That the necessary issues of law and fact have not been framed and
answered by the Learned Lower Court.
7.
That the case was involving highly technical issues requiring
interpretation of the orders and the provisions of law, and in the
circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the parties to be
represented by their lawyers.
8.
That the Learned Lower Court has confused the time schedule, and
the dates mentioned in the order are wrong.
9.
That the Learned Lower Court has misunderstood and misconstrued
the facts of the case.
10.
That the Learned Lower Court was at error in condoning the delay
in preferring the appeal, and the Learned Lower Court has acted in
an arbitrary manner while condoning the delay without assigning
any ground therefor, and the only excuse that could be put forth by
the Learned Lower Court is "the circumstances in the present case
are such that one feels that delay in preferring the appeal be
condoned" is nothing but mockery of justice, and, hence, the appeal
was wrongly entertained.
11.
That the Learned Lower Court has not framed proper issues.
12.
That the Learned Lower Court has framed the issues in a totally
defective manner.
13.
That the Learned Lower Court once having held that the respondent
had resigned orally, it was erroneous on the part of the Tribunal
again to hold that his services were not properly terminated.
14.
That the Learned Lower Court was at error in holding that there was
no communication from the appellants unto the respondent to the
effect that his oral resignation was accepted.
15.
That the Learned Lower Court was at error in holding that any
acceptance was required to be issued in case of a unilateral
unconditional resignation by a Lecturer on probation.
16.
That the Learned Lower Court was at error in holding that the
explanation offered by the Director of the appellant No. 1 was not
convincing without assigning any grounds for holding so.
17.
That the Learned Lower Court has misconstrued the documents at
Exhibit 10/5, and, in fact, the Learned Lower Court has lost sight
of its evidentiary value.
18.
That the Learned Lower Court ought to have held that the Exhibits
10/5 and 10/6 were the documents made in accordance with the
course of business of an office, and hence, ipso facto those were
relevant.
19.
That there was no evidence to justify the questioning of authenticity
or correctness of exhibits 10/5 and 10/6, which were made by two
high dignitaries other than the Director of the institution.
20.
That the Learned Lower Court has arrived at a conclusion that the
respondent must not have given resignation in the absence of any
positive evidence to that effect led by the respondent.
21.
That the Learned Lower Court ought to have held that the
communicated, dated
of the respondent was an afterthought
prompted by his malicious design to harass the management of the institute.
22.
That the conclusion of the Learned Lower Court that oral resignation
cannot be legal itself is illegal.
23.
That the Learned Lower Court ought to have held that the burden
did heavily lie on the respondent to prove his case, and in the
absence of any convincing evidence led by the respondent, there was
no question of the Learned Lower Court's analysing the appellant's
evidence and giving all the benefits of doubt to the respondent.
24.
That the Learned Lower Court has not at all considered the case of
these appellants, and it was the case of these appellants that the
respondent was working on contractual basis and in the absence
of an extension, there should be no automatic continuation of the
respondent.
25.
That the Learned Lower Court has not even considered the case
made out by these appellants that a contractual appointment, after
its expiration, required a mutual fresh contract for its continuation,
and unless that was shown, alleged or pleaded, here was no question
of the Learned Lower Court's substituting the one for the parties.
26.
That the Learned Lower Court has ignored the fact that in the case
of contractual fixed-time of appointment, absence of agreement of
extension itself would amount to termination of services requiring
and needing no notices, orders, or resignations whatsoever.
27.
That the case of the appellants that the respondent was never
confirmed in service was accepted and confirmed by the respondent
himself, and yet its effects were not considered by the Learned Lower
Court, which is really paradoxical and, therefore, bad in law.
28.
That the case of the appellants was supported by the documentary
evidence on record as well as the independent officers
o
f the
appellants in their course of office maintaining records and reports,
while all that what the respondent was relying upon was his own
interested version of the case, and hence, the evidence of the
appellants merited absolute recognition.
29.
That the very fact that academic or administrative performance of
the respondent was very weak, and there were lots of complaints
against him itself would show as to why the respondent must have
orally resigned.
30.
That taking into account the performance of the respondent, the
Learned Lower Court ought to have properly inferred the motives on
the part of the respondent to harass the management.
31.
That the appellants submitted by way of affidavits and otherwise
detailed events and convincing evidence, but the Learned Lower
Court has not cared even to discuss any part of the evidence.
32.
That the Learned Lower Court ought to have considered the legitimate
effects of the fact that the respondent had gone to the length of
producing false evidence, particularly the letter at Exhibit No. 2.
33.
That the Learned Lower Court ought to have upheld the contention
of these appellants, which was not only legal but also judicious.
34.
That the decision of the Learned Lower Court is dated_while
its certified copy was applied for on
the same was delivered the
same day, and hence, this appeal filed today is well within limitation.
35.
That the proper court-fee is paid herewith.
36.
That the appellants, therefore, pray that -
(A)
This appeal be kindly allowed;
(B)
The record and proceedings in the appeal No. PU/25/2003,
by the Learned Presiding Officer, Pune University College
Tribunal, Pune, be called for;
(C)
The judgment and order passed in the said appeal be set aside
and quashed; and
(D) Any other orders in the interest of justice be kindly passed, for which act of grace and favour, these appellants as bounden in duty shall ever pray.
Sd/- AAG
APPELLANTS
Sd/- xXx
ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS