Back
2006 Supreme(Guj) 705
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :R.M.Doshit
UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD. - Appellant
Versus
RATHOD ARUNBHAI BALDEVBHAI - Respondent
Civil Application 11993 Of 2006
Decided On : 11/15/2006
Headnote:Point in Issue :
Whether apprentice is workman?
Head Note :
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) - Section 2(5) - Workman - Apprentices Act, 1961 (Central Act 52 of 1961) - Respondent appointed as apprentice - Completion of term of apprenticeship - Raised dispute after ten years - Failed to prove that he was covered under meaning of "workman" - Further no master-servant relationship existed between Board and respondent - Labour Court erroneously allowed his reinstatement.
Held :
The workman failed to discharge the burden to prove that he was a "workman" which lay upon him. In absence of such proof by the workman, the workman could not have been held to be "a workman" within the meaning of the Act of 1947. He being an apprentice, he had no right to employment in the Board. He, therefore, could not have been ordered to be reinstated in service as has been done by the Labour Judge. [Para 16]
The finding recorded by the Labour Judge is contrary to the evidence on record. Further this is not a case where two views are possible and the Court below has preferred to take one such view. This is a case where the Court below could not have held the workman to be a "workman" within the meaning of the Act of 1947. This is not a case where the workman could have claimed reinstatement in service as of right. In fact, the workman was never a servant of the Board i.e., no master and servant relationship was ever established between the Board and the workman. [Para 17]
It should also be noted that admittedly the apprenticeship of the respondent came to an end on 24.03.1983. He did not raise any dispute until the year 1993. Thus, the dispute raised by the workman was grossly delayed. In fact, ten years after the cause of action, there could not have been an existing dispute between the Board and the workman. The workman has not explained the said delay at all. In absence of acceptable explanation, the learned Labour Judge ought not to have entertained a stale claim which was not pursued or was raised ten years after the date of the cause of action. [Para 18]
Law Laid Down :
Apprentice is not covered under meaning of workman?
Cases Referred :
Assistant Engineer C.A.D. Kota vs. Dhan Kunwar, 2006 AIR SCW 3571;;Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam & Anr. vs. Sham Lal, 2006 AIR SCW 3574;; Mukesh K. Tripathi vs. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC & Ors., 2004 (8) SCC 387;; Chairman/MD, Mahandi Coalfields Limited & Ors. vs. Sadashib Behera & Ors., 2005 (2) SCC 396;; Dhampur Sugar Mills Limited vs. Bhola Singh, 2005 (2) SCC 470;; Balol Khan Doskhan Joya vs. GEB letters Patent Appeal No. 121 of 2000 decided on 09.01.2001;; Deputy Executive Engineer Mechanical vs. Sukhabhai Gandabhai & Ors., 2001 (2) GLH 551;; Navsari District Panchayat & Anr. vs. Sumanbhai Morarbhai Patel & Anr. Ors. 2003 (1) GLR 5.
Decided in Favour of :
Appellant
Petition Allowed
( 1 ) THE petitioner, Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as, "the Company") a successor to the Gujarat Electricity board (hereinafter referred to as, "the Board"), has preferred the present petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and award dated 5th May, 2005 passed by the learned Labour Judge, Ahmedabad in Reference (L. C. A.) No. 1926 of 1993. By impugned award, the respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, "the workman") has been ordered to be reinstated in service on the same post and on the same terms and conditions without any other service benefits or the wages.
( 2 ) AT the outset, Mr. Dave has sought permission of the Court to place on record and rely upon two documents viz. , the order of appointment of the workman as an Apprentice and the order relieving him on completion of the period of apprenticeship. Mr. Dave has candidly admitted that though the said documents were in possession of the Board, they were not produced before the Court below. He, however, has submitted that the said orders were referred to in the pleadings. The workman also has, in his evidence, admitted that he was appointed as an apprentice and that he was relieved after completion of the period of apprenticeship. In the submission of Mr. Dave, the interest of justice requires that these two documents be permitted to be brought on the record.
( 3 ) MR. Desai does not dispute the genuineness of the said documents. He, however, has objected the motion made by Mr. Dave. He has submitted that the Reference was pending before the Court below for more than ten years. The Board was aware of the contention raised by the workman. Nevertheless, the Board failed to produce any document on record. This Court should not allow the said documents to be brought on record at this belated stage and to permit the Board to fill-in the lacunae.
( 4 ) ON perusal of the record, it appears that the workman did not disclose in the statement of claim that he was engaged by the Board as an apprentice and that he was relieved after completion of the period of apprenticeship. But, in his evidence, he did admit that he was engaged as an apprentice and that he was relieved after completion of the period of apprenticeship. In my view, therefore, no prejudice shall cause to the workman if the aforesaid documents are permitted to be brought on the record and to be relied upon at this stage of the proceeding. I, therefore, allow the Company to rely upon the above-referred two documents placed at Annexures "a" and "b" to the memo of the petition.
( 5 ) BY order dated 22nd March, 1982 (Annexure "a" to the petition), the workman was engaged as an apprentice in the Clerk Trade for a period of one year on monthly stipend of Rs. 275/- and on terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. On completion of the period of one year of apprenticeship, by order dated 24th March, 1983 (Annexure "b" to the petition), the workman was relieved. It has also come on record that after completion of the apprenticeship, the workman did not take the trade test given by the National council for Vocational Training nor did he secure the proficiency certificate issued by the said Council. Ten years after completion of the apprenticeship, the workman raised a dispute and claimed reinstatement in service with consequential benefits. Before the Court below, the workman submitted his statement of claim. According to the workman, he was employed by the Board as a Clerk for a monthly pay of Rs. 275/-; that on account of some dispute the Board has with the father of the workman, the Board victimised the workman and terminated his service. Since then, he was unemployed. The claim made by the workman was contested by the Board. The Board denied that the workman was employed as a Clerk and that he was victimized. It was stated that the workman had been engaged as an Apprentice for the period from 25th March, 1982 to 24th March
