The designation of an employee as 'trainee' does not automatically exempt them from 'workman' classification under the Industrial Disputes Act; actual duties performed are determinative for rights and protections.

JUDGMENT :

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the Judgment and Order dated 18.05.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) NO. 4815/2001 [“Impugned Judgment”].

2. By way of the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant, to uphold the Award dated 23.04.2001 passed by the Labor Court in I.D NO.1443/95 (Old I.D. No. 95/87.

3. The Labor Court as well as the learned Single Judge were of the opinion that the Appellant is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act, [“ID Act”].

4. The facts, in brief as presented by the Appellant in the present appeal, are as follows:

a. The Appellant was appointed by the Respondent-Management as a "Full-time Grainer" vide Appointment Letter dated 01.06.1983 [“Appointment Letter”]. Though he was appointed as a "Full time Grainer" the Appointment Letter mentions that he was selected as a "trainee".

b. The Appointment Letter stipulates that the training period may last up to one year, however, the training period was extended from 31.05.1984 to 31.05.1985, from 31.05.1985 to 31.05.1986 and lastly, from 31.05.1986 to 31.05.1987. It is, therefore, the case of the Appellant that he worked for more than three years and was still called a "trainee".

c. The Appointment Letter also indicated that he was getting a stipend of Rs. 400/- and the period of training could be extended from time to time. The said Appointment Letter also stipulated that in case he would remain absent from his training without giving prior intimation, it would be deemed that he was voluntarily abandoning his training.

d. The Appellant could not report for work from 11.06.1986 to 17.06.1986 due to ill-health. However, when he wanted to re- join thereafter, he was not allowed to do so by the Respondent- Management and was instead asked to re-visit after three-four days. However, despite the directions, the Appellant was still not permitted to join his duties. As such, it is the case of the Appellant that his services were illegally terminated by the Respondent-Management on 18.06.1986.

e. The Appellant sent a Demand Notice dated 02.07.1986 along with a copy of the Medical Certificate dated 17.06.1986, stating that the action of the Respondent-Management of disallowing the Appellant from resuming duties was arbitrary, illegal and amounted to unfair labor practice.

f. Since the Respondent-Management did not reply to the Appellant's Demand Notice dated 02.07.1986, the Appellant was constrained to raise an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labor Court, with the term of reference being as follows:

“Whether the termination of services of Sh. Raj Kumar Rastogi is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

g. The Labor Court vide Award dated 23.04.2001, after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence, was of the opinion that the Appointment Letter on which the Appellant placed reliance shows that he was only working as a "Trainee Grainer" and that there was nothing on record to depict that the Appellant was a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the ID Act. In this regard, the Labor Court placed reliance on the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Kamal Kumar v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Others, 1998 (4) LLN 585, which held that a "Trainee" is not a "Workman."

h. The above judgment passed by the Labor Court was the subject matter of W.P. (C) NO. 4815/2001 filed b