Back
1997 Supreme(All) 1375
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. C. Agarwal, J.
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Appellant
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 17762 Of 1995
Decided On : 11/24/1997
K.N.MISHRA, Ranjit Saxena
An apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961, is not a workman and the provisions of any law with respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to such apprentice.
Headnote:
APPRENTICES ACT, 1961 - SECTION 4, 7, 20, 21, 22, 29, 30, 31 - APPRENTICES RULES, 1962 - RULE 4-B, 5 - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 4-K - U. P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 6-N - WORKMAN - APPRENTICE - TERMINATION OF SERVICES - DELAY IN RAISING DISPUTE - REGISTRATION OF CONTRACT - TRAINING - EXAMINATION - REINSTATEMENT - BACK WAGES - LEGALITY OF TERMINATION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - APPLICABILITY OF LABOUR LAWS - JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employer, challenged an award by the Labour Court reinstating the respondent, a former apprentice boiler attendant, and directing payment of back wages from a specific date. The respondent claimed that his termination was illegal as he was not provided with proper training, registration, and examination as required under the Apprentices Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the respondent was engaged only as an apprentice and not as a workman, and that the dispute was raised after an unreasonable delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent was engaged as an apprentice under the Apprentices Act, 1961, and that the contract of apprenticeship was required to be registered under the Act. The court found that the respondent had not raised the dispute within a reasonable time, and that the Labour Court should have declined to grant him any relief even if the termination of his services was invalid. The court also held that the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961, along with the Rules framed thereunder, constitute a complete Code within which the rights and liabilities of the employer and the apprentice have to be determined.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was a workman or an apprentice. 2. Whether the termination of the respondent's services was illegal. 3. Whether the dispute was raised within a reasonable time. 4. Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondent was an apprentice under the Apprentices Act, 1961, and that the contract of apprenticeship was required to be registered under the Act. The court found that the respondent had not raised the dispute within a reasonable time, and that the Labour Court should have declined to grant him any relief even if the termination of his services was invalid. The court also held that the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961, along with the Rules framed thereunder, constitute a complete Code within which the rights and liabilities of the employer and the apprentice have to be determined. 2. The court held that the termination of the respondent's services was not illegal as he was engaged as an apprentice under the Apprentices Act, 1961, and the period of his training had come to an end. The court found that the petitioner employer was not obliged to offer employment to the respondent after the expiry of the training period.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned award of the Labour Court. The respondent was directed to pay the costs of the petitioner.
( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner employer challenges and award dated 24th November, 1994, made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court i, U. P. , Kanpur, in Adjudication Case No. 93 of 1994, whereby the Labour Court directed that the termination of the services of the workman respondent No. 2 as Boiler Attendant was not in accordance with law and he was entitled to be reinstated with the benefit of continuation in service. With regard to the back wages, it directed that the wages would be payable only from 1st February, 1994.
( 2 ) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
( 3 ) I have heard Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K. N. Misra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
( 4 ) THE Government of Uttar Pradesh referred the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. for adjudication to the Labour Court. The dispute was whether the removal of the workman from work with effect from 9th March, 1985, was valid.
( 5 ) BEFORE the Labour Court, the case set up by the respondent No. 2 was that he was employed by the General Manager, Kesa at the river side Power House, Kanpur, as a boiler attendant under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from 9th March, 1982 to 8th march, 1985 and his services were terminated with effect from 9th March, 1985. According to him, the work performed by him was of a permanent nature and he worked as a regular boiler attendant under rotation in all the three shifts and that no R. I. Course (Related Instructions course) was conducted and the application of apprenticeship was not got registered with the board, I. T. I. , Kanpur, and no examination was held by the National Council and thus he could not get the trade certificate under the Act. According to him, those provisions were mandatory and were not fulfilled by the employer. The termination of his services was alleged to be in violation of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and that he should be deemed to be in continuous service. It was alleged that on 12th August, 1993, a legal notice was sent to the employer for taking him back in employment, but no reply was received and hence a case was filed on 21st August, 1993, before the Conciliation Officer.
( 6 ) IN the award, the Labour Court has stated that no written statement was filed in the proceedings by the employer. It has, however, stated that the employer participated in the proceedings, cross-examined the employees witnesses and filed written arguments. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it has been stated that a written statement was filed by the employer before the Labour Court contending that the claimant was engaged only as an Apprentice under the Act and was not a workman. A copy of the written statement has been filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, the averments, that a written statement was filed by the employer, have not been denied while the respondent no. 1 has not filed any counter affidavit.
( 7 ) THE Labour Court held that a person cannot be treated as an Apprentice under the Act till the requisite from prescribed under the Act is got filled and the same is got registered with the apprenticeship Advisor and unless the apprentice is imparted training in accordance with the prescribed syllabus and unless he is awarded a trade certificate and that the employer has not established the fulfillment of the aforesaid conditions. Therefore, the Labour Court made the award as aforesaid.
( 8 ) THE first point raised by the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 did ! not raise the dispute within a reasonable time and, therefore, the Labour Court should not have granted him any relief. As is admitted to the respondent No. 2, he was not provided any work after 8th March, 1985. He kept quiet for a very long time and, for the first time, he sent a legal no
