IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1407 of 2017 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/2434/2006 ================================================================

M/S. COROMANDEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Versus PATEL PRAMOD INDRAVADAN ================================================================

Appearance:

MS NANCY SONI for M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA(949) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR AKASH MODI for MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY(1060) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA And HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA Date : 11/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Nancy Soni appearing for M/s Trivedi & Gupta for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.Akash Modi appearing for learned advocate Mr.Prabhakar Upadyay for the respondent.

2. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, the appellant – original petitioner has challenged the Order dated 13.04.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.2434 of 2006, whereby the Award dated 06.12.2005 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference (L.C.B.)

No.512 of 1999 has been upheld.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

3.1 The respondent–workman was appointed as a trainee Boiler-cum-Incinerator Operator in the appellant Company on 15.04.1998. The training period was fixed for six months and thereafter it could be extended for a further period of three months at the discretion of the appellant Company. As per the terms of the appointment letter, the appellant Company could terminate the services of the respondent without any notice during the training period.

3.2 The initial training period was from 15.04.1998 to 15.10.1998 and thereafter it was extended for a further period of three months, i.e., up to 14.01.1999. The appellant Company, by letter dated 07.04.1999 sent through RPAD, intimated the respondent that as per Clause 3 of the appointment letter, his training was discontinued with effect from 13.04.1999. Thereafter, by communication made in the month of September 1999, a cheque of Rs. 1,426.25/- towards full and final settlement was sent to the respondent, which was not accepted by him.

3.3 The respondent thereafter raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Bharuch, being Reference (L.C.B.) No. 512 of 1999.

3.4. The Labour Court, Bharuch, by Award dated 06.12.2005, directed reinstatement of the respondent with 50% back wages on the ground that the respondent was working as a skilled technical worker from day one and at the time of his termination also, he had been treated as being permanent and had completed 240 days of service.

3.5 Being aggrieved the appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was disposed of by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 13.04.2017 on the ground that the respondent was discharging his duties as an apprentice who was engaged for one year and thereafter continued to be engaged by the appellant. After 14.01.1999, there was no extension of the training period and, therefore, there existed an employer-

employee relationship between the parties.

3.6 Learned Single Judge, after considering the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the ID Act’), concurred with the findings arrived at by the Labour Court that, if there existed an employer-employee relationship between the parties, then there is a breach of the provisions of section 25F of the ID Act. However, the learned Single Judge reduced the back wages from 50% to 20% from the date of termination till the date of Award of the Labour Court i.e. from 13.04.1999 to 06.12.2005 only, as the petitioner was given the benefit of Section 17B of the ID Act for period beyond the Award till his retirement.

4. Learned advocate Ms.Nancy Soni for the appellant submitted that the respondent was appointed as a trainee and his initial period of six mon