D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) ). THIS Letters Patent Appeal by the employee of the Gujarat Electricity Board has been preferred against the order of the learned single Judge dated 29-2-2000 passed in Special Civil Application no. 546 of 1995 (reported in 2000 (2) GLR 1522), whereby the Award of reinstatement of the employee with 25% of back wages passed by the Labour court on 15-10-1994 has been set aside.

( 2 ) NECESSARY facts giving rise to the appeal are as under :- the respondent-Board, by an order issued on 30-7-1979, appointed the appellant on work charge establishment on the post of Helper and he joined the post on 6-8-1979. The appointment was for a period of 190 days and his services were terminated on 29-11-1979. The employee was then inducted as an Apprentice Lineman on 19-2-1981 and his services were informally terminated or discontinued on 27-11-1981 on the ground that the contract of apprenticeship sent to the Apprenticeship Adviser in accordance with Sec. 4 (5) of the Apprentices act, 1961 has not been registered. The employee then approached the Labour court under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, stating that the informal termination of his service is contrary to the provisions of the I. D. Act as he was not given any notice nor retrenchment compensation. The Labour Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that even though the contract of apprenticeship was not registered by the Apprenticeship adviser, the employee would be deemed to be a workman within the definition of I. D. Act and in absence of observance of formalities required under the i. D. Act, termination of his service is illegal. The Labour Court, therefore, granted relief of reinstatement in service to the employee, but awarded only 25% back wages.

( 3 ) THE employer then challenged the Award of the Labour Court in this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition of the employer and set aside the Award of the Labour Court. In the opinion of the learned single Judge, even though the contract of apprenticeship was not registered, because the employee was not fulfilling the prescribed educational qualification for being appointed as an apprentice, the status of such apprentice can be termed only as a trainee. Such a person cannot be deemed to be a workman, within the meaning of the J. D. Act. The reasoning of the learned single Judge is that to find out the nature of employment and the status of the employee, what is to be seen is the intention of the employer in giving employment as disclosed from the terms of the contract of the employment and the subsequent conduct of the parties.

( 4 ) IN this Letters Patent Appeal, learned Counsel appearing for the employee has mainly criticised the reasoning of the learned single Judge. It is submitted that the learned single Judge erred in holding that although the apprenticeship contract was not registered and the provisions of the Apprenticeship Act were not applicable, the employee cannot get protection from the provisions of the I. D. Act, because his relationship with the employer would be only of an apprentice or trainee and not a workman. It is stated on behalf of the employee that being in service from 19-2-1981 to 27-11-1981, the employee has completed more than 240 days of uninterrupted service, and therefore, the provisions of Sec. 25-F of the Act were clearly breached to justify grant of relief of reinstatement to the workman by the Labour Court.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the employer-Board made an effort to support the order of the learned single Judge and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Employees State Insurance Corporation and Anr. v. Tata Engineering and Co. , AIR 1976 SC 66.

( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment of the learned single Judge, we have formed opinion that this Appeal deserves to be allo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document