IMPORTANT POINT
Where a person was appointed as apprentice trainee for two years and there was no material to show that his services were regularised, termination of his services would not be covered by Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act.

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(s) - Workman - Apprentices Act, 1961 - Section 18 - Question whether respondent appointed as an apprentice by appellant was a workman and whether Labour Court was right in holding that termination of respondent’s apprenticeship was in violation of Section 25F of the Act - Respondent joined as a casual labourer on daily wages with appellant in April 1987 and continued to work till May 1990 - He was selected for post of Apprenticeship Trainee in April 1990 - During 1st year he was paid consolidated salary of Rs. 600/- p.m. and during 2nd year he was paid Rs. 750/- p.m. - He was removed from service on 1-5-1992 - Labour Court found that even after joining as apprentice in May 1990 respondent worked in show-room and performed same work which he had performed previously and his dismissal was not justified - Court ordered his reinstatement with back wages - High Court upheld the award in writ - Appeal - Findings by Labour Court that respondent was not an apprentice trainee “but a workman” who was made to perform full time job under guise of Apprentice Trainee was not supported by any material on record and was contrary to appointment letter - Respondent’s case was covered by Section 18 of 1961 Act - Labour Court and High Court erred in holding respondent to be a workman - Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.
       Held : From the above, it will be seen that on the one hand while an apprentice is also treated to be a workman for the purposes of the 1947 Act, by virtue of Section 18 of the 1961 Act, it has been categorically provided that apprentices are not workers and the provisions of any law with respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to such apprentice.(Para 19)
       In the absence of any such material, it is difficult to understand the reasoning of the Labour Court that the respondent was not an "apprentice trainee" but a "workman" who was made to perform a full-time job under the guise of an Apprentice Trainee. The High Court appears to have been impressed by the reasoning of the Labour Court with regard to the finding that although designated as an apprentice, the respondent was not undergoing training, but was an employee doing full time work in the establishment. Such a view, in our judgment, is not supported by the materials on record and is completely contrary to the appointment letter issued to the respondent on 26th April, 1990 and the respondents own letter dated 29th April, 1992, in admission of such fact. Had such a letter of appointment not been available, the Labour Court and/or the High Court could justifiably have embarked on an exercise as to whether the respondent was in effect a "trainee" under the Apprentices Act, 1961, or a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the 1947 Act. There is nothing on record to indicate that the respondents services had ever been regularized or that he was brought on the rolls of the permanent establishment.(Para 24)
       Even if it is accepted that the respondent was a workman within the meaning of the 1947 Act, on account of his contractual tenure, his case would come within the exception of clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) thereof. In such a case also, the provisions of Section 25F of the said Act would have no application to the respondents case.(Para 25)
       In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the respondents case was covered by the provisions of Section 18 of the 1961 Act and both the Labour Court as well as the High Court erred in proceeding on the basis that the respondent was a workman to whom the provisions of the 1947 Act would be applicable.(Para 26)

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J. - Leave granted.

2. The short point for decision in these appeals is whether in view of Section 18 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the "1961 Act") the 1st Addl. Labour Court, Chennai, was justified in holding that the respondent who had been appointed as an apprentice by the appellant herein was a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Act). The said question also gives rise to the issue as to whether the Labour Court was right in holding that the termination of the respondents apprenticeship was in violation of Section 25-F of the 1947 Act and consequently whether he was entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service and all back wages and other concessions accruing to him.

3. A few facts are required to be set out to appreciate the award passed by the Labour Court.

4. The case made out by the respondent before the Labour Court under Section 2 (a) of the 1947 Act was that he had joined the appellant herein as a casual labourer on daily wages on 6th April, 1987. According to him he had continued to work in the Marketing Development Centre of the appellant at Nungambakkam on daily wages at Rs. 15/- per day continuously till 2nd May, 1990. It was also his case that while working with the appellant he had been called for a direct interview on 13th April, 1990 for the post of Apprenticeship Trainee (Shop Assistant) and that he was selected as per the Order dated 26th April, 1990. It was asserted by the respondent that during the 1st year he was paid a salary of Rs.600/- per month and during the 2nd year he was paid Rs.750/- per month as salary and after the training period was over, the appellant herein had agreed to appoint him as a Peon. It is his case that on 8th July, 1991, he was transferred to the Government Purchase Section of the Regional Office where he was made to perform dispatch work. Suddenly, on 1st May, 1992, without any reason or inquiry, he was removed from service and that since he had served continuously for more than 240 days, his removal from service should be treated as retrenchment since the appellant herein had not followed the procedure indicated in Section 25-F of the 1947 Act.

5. The further case of the respondent was that while juniors were allowed to continue in service, he was not reinstated and his removal from service without any reason violates the provisions of Section 25-F of 1947 Act.

6. The appellant herein had chosen to remain silent despite the several letters written on behalf of the respondent and ultimately an application was filed before the Labour Officer on 30th March, 1993. However, since the conciliation failed, the respondent was compelled to pray for reinstatement with continuity of service and other concessions.

7. The case made out by the respondent was completely denied by the appellant herein and it was stated in its counter that the respondent had applied to the appellant for appointment to the post of Staff Assistant Apprentice Trainee and that in the interview dated 13th April, 1990 he was selected and orders were passed in this regard on 26th April, 1990 wherein it was specifically mentioned that the training period would be for two years only. It was also mentioned that during the period of training in the 1st year consolidated wages of Rs.600/- per month would be paid and during the 2nd year a sum of Rs.750/- per month would be paid. The respondent was directed to report for training before 3rd May, 1990 and the training period consequently came to an end on 2nd May, 1992. On 29th April, 1992, the respondent requested the appellant to confirm him in service and by subsequent letters dated 12th August, 1992 and 7th December, 1992, the respondent requested the appellant to make him permanent. Only thereafter notices were issued by the respondent through his advocate indicating that he had been removed fr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 1099

IMPORTANT POINT Where a person was appointed as apprentice trainee for two years and there was no material to show that his services were regularised, termination of his services would not be covered by Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where a person was appointed as apprentice trainee for two years and there was no material to show that his services were regularised, termination of his services would not be covered by Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act.