Back
1998 Supreme(Del) 402
High Court Of Delhi
KAMAL KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
J.P.S.MALIK PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR OFFICER - Respondent
Civil Writ 1336 of 1996
Decided On : 05/18/1998
D.N.Vohra, Jagat Arora, KITTU BAJAJ
Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(s) — Workman — Meaning of — Apprentice — Appointment of mere trainee to assist the employer — The employee is not a workman under the Act.
Held:
Admittedly in the present case the provisions of Apprenticeship Act is not applicable. During the period of training the petitioner was given a stipend of Rs.350/-. A close examination of the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondents leads to the conclusion that the principal object with which the parties entered into the agreement of training was an offer by the employer to the petitioner to have an opportunity to learn trade or craft to acquire such knowledge that may be obtained in the course of training. From the aforesaid terms of the agreement, it is clear that the petitioner was a mere trainee for a particular period and for a distinct purpose and the respondent was not bound to employ him in their works after the period of training is over. It, thereforee, cannot be said that the petitioner was a workman of the respondent Company, inasmuch as, the purpose of engagement of the petitioner was only to offer him training under the terms and conditions stipulated above. No wage was paid to the petitioner as defined within the meaning of wages under the Industrial Disputes Act. Merely because some amount was paid to the petitioner as Provident Fund, it cannot be said that he had become a workman of the respondent Company.
The petitioner in the present case has failed to prove and establish that he is employed in the respondent Company and that also to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward. The terms and conditions of his appointment clearly indicate that he was engaged as a Trainee and not employed to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward.
( 1 ). The present writ petition is directed against the award dated 31. 1. 1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi, holding that the petitioner does not come within the purview of the definition of `workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, he being not a workman, there is no illegality or unjustifiability in action of the Management in terminating the service of the petitioner.
( 2 ). The aforesaid award was passed on the basis of a reference raised by the petitioner against the order passed by the Management-respondent terminating his services. On the basis of the aforesaid dispute raised by the petitioner, the appropriate Government referred the following issue to the Labour Court:-
"whether the termination of services of Sh. Kamal Kumar is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in that respect?"
( 3 ). The case of the petitioner as disclosed from the statement of claim is that he was a workman employee with the respondent since 1985 drawing remuneration at Rs. 450. 00 per month and after completion of his training with the Management in the year 1984, he was interview and was selected for training with effect from 1. 3. 1985. It was further stated that on 20. 3. 1986, the petitioner met with an accident and was bed-ridden from 20. 3. 1986 to 3. 4. 1986, but, on 25. 3. 1986, the services of the petitioner was terminated without issuing any charge sheet and without holding any enquiry.
( 4 ). In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Management, the stand taken was that in pursuance of a Contract entered into between the petitioner and the Management dated 1. 3. 1985 for imparting training, the petitioner was offered to undergo training in the respondent Company as a `trade Trainee and that the relationship of the petitioner and the Management was governed by the terms and conditions stipulated in the said Contract. The Management has specifically denied the relationship of employer and employee between the parties and has stated that the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of the definition of `workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also stated that the petitioner was being paid a stipend of Rs. 350. 00 per month. It is also denied that the petitioner was undergoing with the Management since 1982 and stated that he was inducted as a `trade Trainee in pursuance of a Contract dated 1. 3. 1985. It is further stated that the aptitude of the petitioner was assessed by the Board of the Management who submitted its report on 15. 3. 1986 and in view of the report submitted by the Interview Board, contract of training of the petitioner was brought to an end by the Management with effect from 25. 3. 1986.
( 5 ). On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed six issues, one of which was:-
"whether the claimant is a workman under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act?"the Labour Court also recorded evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter by award dated 31. 1. 1996 held that the petitioner was not a workman and is not covered by the definition provided in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that there was no illegality or unjustifiability in the action of the management in terminating the services of the petitioner as the same was done by the management as per the terms and conditions of the Contract.
( 6 ). I have heard Mr. D. N. Vohra, counsel appearing for the petitioner who submitted that the petitioner was a workman as he is fully covered by the definition of `workman under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to him, since Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act includes the expression `apprentice , therefore, an apprentice is covered and comes within the definition of `workman and, therefore, the Labour Court erred in law in holding otherwise
