1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.16 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6195 OF 2003 Shri Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Anr. ..Appellants V/s. Smt.Lata P. Kore & Ors. ..Respondents ­­­­ Mr. Anilkumar K.Joshi i/by P.K.Hushing for the appellants. Mr.A.M.Joshi for respondent no.1. Mr.R.M.Patne AGP for respondent no.2. ­­­­ Coram : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.S.MOHITE,JJ Date : 9th July, 2009. PC 1 Admittedly the appellant treated the respondent as a temporary employee. According to the management, because she did not attend the duties for a period of one year, she is deemed to have abandoned her services. It is common ground that if the respondent is taken to be the permanent employee, then the period of her absence must exceeds 3 years to bring about termination of her services. The School Tribunal on the basis of the letter of the management itself has recorded a finding of fact that the services of the respondent were confirmed. That finding has been approved and confirmed by the learned single Judge after re­appreciating the evidence on record. Learned single Judge 2 and the School Tribunal have relied on a letter of the management dated 1.6.1997. Therefore, it is obvious that in support of that finding of fact there is evidence on record and therefore, there is no reason for us to interfere that finding of fact. If that finding of fact is accepted then management was in error in treating services of the respondent as terminated for her alleged absence for one year. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, that aspect was also considered by the learned single Judge and we cannot find any fault in that finding. Taking overall view of the matter, there is no substance in the appeal. Appeal stands rejected. 2 In view of dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application No.180/2009 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) ( R.S.MOHITE, J. )