Important points1. When a workman is appointed in terms of a scheme on daily wages, he does not derive any legal right to be regularized in his service.2. Where the services of a workman have been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 6N of the Industrial Disputes Act, a direction for reinstatement shall not ordinarily be issued, in the event, the termination of services becomes co-terminus with the scheme.3. If the provisions of the Apprentices Act applies, the provisions of the Labour Laws would have no application.

Headnote:(i) U.P. Industrial Disputes Act—Section 6N—Apprentices Act, 1961—Termination of Services at the end of the scheme—Challenged—Respondent was appointed as a trainee/apprentice—Absorption of 11 of the trainees after interview—Respondent could not qualify—Termination of all the remaining 34 trainees including respondent as the scheme sponsored by the State Government having come to an end—Order challenged by respondent alleging that his services were terminated by appellant by way of unfair labour practice—He contended that appellant had regularized services of 11 Field Supervisors but he was not—Whether there was non compliance of requirements of Section 6N of the Act—(No).
       Held : The Respondent herein, therefore, was not asked to appear before the Interview Board on 16.11.1987 as alleged by him. The positive case of the Respondent before the Labour Court was that on receipt of the said letter, he appeared before the competent authority on 16.11.1987, when he contended that he had not been absenting from duty but had been prevented from joining his duties. From the Award of the Labour Court it also does not appear that any statement was made before it by the Respondent to the effect that he had appeared before an Interview Board. Even such a contention does not appear to have been raised at the time of raising the industrial dispute as no reference as regard non-regularization of his services by the Appellant was made. (Para 13)
       The Respondent advisedly raised the question of applicability of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act having regard to the provisions of the Apprentices Act but even assuming that he was a workman within the meaning of the provisions thereof, the Labour Court had unhesitatingly came to the conclusion that the statutory requirements for effecting a valid retrenchment in terms thereof had been complied with. A finding of fact has also been arrived at by the Labour Court that the scheme sponsored by the State Government had come to an end. (Para 16)
       The High Court, thus, in our opinion committed a manifest error in coming to the conclusion that the Appellant is guilty of commission of unfair labour practice only on the premise that the services of 11 similarly situated had been regularized without taking into consideration the materials placed on records as also the finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court that the services of such persons had been regularized in the year 1986. The High Court further failed to take notice of the fact that according to the Appellant, the Respondent herein did not qualify for his absorption at that time and, thus, his services continued as apprentice with several other trainees and it was only when the scheme came to an end, the services of all the trainees had been terminated. When a workman is appointed in terms of a scheme on daily wages, he does not derive any legal right to be regularized in his service. It is now well known that completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year may not by itself be a ground for directing regularization particularly in a case when the workman had not been appointed in accordance with the extant rules. (Paras 17 and 18)
       It is now well-settled that even in a case where the services of a workman have been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 6N of the Industrial Disputes Act, a direction for reinstatement shall not ordinarily be issued, in the event, the termination of services becomes co-terminus with the scheme. (Para 21)
       (ii) Apprentices Act, 1961—Workman—A trainee or an apprentice appointed in terms of the Act—He will not be a workman—A trainee or an apprentice has no right to be absorbed in services—If the provisions of the Apprentices Act applies, provisions of the Labour Laws would have no application. (Paras 14 and 15)

Judgment

S.B. Sinha, J.—The Respondent herein was appointed as a trainee/apprentice in the year 1986 purported to be in terms of a scheme sponsored by the State Government for training the cane growers. According to the Appellant, in the year 1986, 45 such trainees had been interviewed and 11 of the them having been found fit were absorbed in its regular service. The Respondent herein allegedly did not qualify therefor. He along with remaining trainees continued to perform their duties as trainees/apprentices. The scheme sponsored by the State Government having come to an end on 16.11.1987 and no fund therefor having been made available, the services of all the remaining 34 trainees were terminated. The Respondent was paid due compensation as envisaged under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. He, however, raised an industrial dispute pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof a notification was issued on or about 13.12.1991 by the Appropriate Government referring the following dispute for adjudication before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Rampur:

“Whether the separation/deprivation of Mr. Bhole Singh S/o Shri Sukhdev Singh from the service w.e.f. 16.11.1987 is unjustified and illegal? If yes, then the concerned workman would be entitled to get what relief/benefit and with what details.”

2. Before the Labour Court a contention was raised by the Respondent herein that his services were terminated by the Appellant by way of unfair labour practice as he had raised a purported demand for his regularization in services as also non-payment of minimum wages. He contended that the Appellant had regularized the services of 11 Field Supervisors but he was not. According to him, he was called for interview along with others by a letter dated 7.11.1987. He contended that he had not been absenting with effect from 1.6.1987 as was alleged in the said letter dated 7.11.1987 but despite the same, his services were terminated on 2.6.1987.

3. The case of the Appellant, on the other hand, is that the services of the Respondent along with the persons similarly situated had been terminated as the scheme sponsored by the State Government had come to an end.

4. Before the Labour Court the principal contention appears to have been raised by the Respondent herein was non-compliance of the requirements of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which was rejected.

5. The Labour Court in its award held :

“....On the contrary, the version of the employer is that Mr. Bhole Singh was engaged as trainee in the cane development department. During training period the workman was getting stipend. That in the year 1986 all the candidates were interviewed by the employer all 11 trainees were selected and they were appointed. Thereafter the training scheme came to an end. After the end of the training scheme, requiring trainees were not required. The trainees who could qualify the interview, their arrangement was dispensed with by paying one month’s notice pay and 15 days stipend for every completed year of service through cheque on dated 16.11.1987 by way of retrenchment. But workman refused to receive the cheque. Consequently, the cheque of retrenchment compensation was sent by Registered post to workman, which was received by him on dated 23.11.1987. Hence, the services of the workman were terminated as per rules. In addition, it was also stated that workman was never engaged on seasonal a permanent post and he is a trainee, as such he does not fall within the ambit of definition of workman. That there are four trade unions in the industry but no union is interested in the dispute.

Both the parties admit the fact that workman has worked for more than 240 days and it is also admitted that his service was terminated w.e.f. 16.11.1987 and at the time of termination of the service, he was paid one month’s notice pay and retrenchment compensation @ 15 days stipend for every completed year of service. It has not been objected from the workman

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 215

Cases Referred (5)