- (1.) The appellant joined service with Respondent 1 as General manager/executive Director in June 1980. His services were terminated on payment of three months' salary in lieu of the notice period by the order dated 4/5/1981. Clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the appointment order are as under: "4.You will be on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining duty. 5. The Management reserves the right to terminate your probation at any time during the period of probation, without notice and without assigning any reason whatsoever. 6. The appointment is terminable on three months' notice on either side. "
(2.) The appellant represented before Respondent 1 that clause 6 by itself was sufficient to protect the interests of both the parties and as such it was not necessary to retain clauses 4 and 5 of the appointment order. On the said representation the employer deleted clauses 4 and 5 from the appointment order.
(3.) The appellant challenged the order of termination by way of a writ petition before the A. P. High court. A learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the following reasoning: "It is clear from a perusal of the above correspondence that, in the original offer of appointment, the petitioner was supposed to be kept on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining duty, and the management reserved to itself the right to terminate his probation at any time during the period of probation without notice, and without assigning any reasons (vide conditions 4 and 5 in the order dated 1/1/1980. 675 condition 6 of this order clearly provided further that 'the appointment is terminable on three months' notice on either side'. When this offer was 3 made to the petitioner, he objected only to conditions 4 and 5, staling that condition 6 is sufficient protection for both sides. He also wanted to be designated as Executive Director, instead of General Manager. The 1st respondent Company accepted the said conditions and, accordingly, deleted conditions 4 and 5. This was intimated to the petitioner by letter dated 13/2/198080. Subsequently, the order of appointment issued on 10/6/1980, while omitting conditions 4 and 5 contained in the original offer, but specifically incorporating condition 6 in the original offer, as condition 4, which stated 'the appointment is terminable on three months' notice on either side'. It is thus clear that the appointment of the petitioner was on contract, and was the result of an agreement between the parties. Both the parties clearly understood and stipulated that either party shall be entitled to terminate the employment by giving three months' notice. The present order of termination is clearly in terms of the contract of service. ";