Government reference of an industrial dispute is not subject to individual limitations under the Act, affirming workman's status despite apprenticeship.

O R D E R

The challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated 13.10.2021 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Puducherry in I.D.(L) No. 36/2017. By the said award, the Labour Court allowed the dispute referred by the Government of Puducherry under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“Act, 1947” for the sake of brevity) and directed the petitioner-management to reinstate the respondent-workman into service with 50% back wages and other attendant benefits.

2.1. The respondent claims that he was selected through an interview and appointed as a workman under the petitioner-management to operate the rapping machine in the BEAD Section of Door-1 Department with effect from 26.07.2007. While employed, he alleges that he was removed from service on 21.11.2011 without issuance of any prior notice, and a consequential termination order was issued to him on 31.01.2012. The respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report on 21.03.2017, following which the Government of Puducherry referred the dispute under Section 10(1)(C) of the Act, 1947 by order dated 29.05.2017.

2.2. The petitioner-management entered appearance and filed a detailed counter, contending inter alia that the respondent approached the Conciliation Officer after an inordinate and unexplained delay. It was further contended that the respondent was engaged only as an apprentice trainee pursuant to order dated 01.04.2008, with a fixed stipend during the training period, and the apprenticeship was structured for 42 months in four spells, of which the respondent was initially engaged for six months. According to the petitioner, the respondent was lethargic, absented himself from training from 22.10.2011 without justification, and his performance was unsatisfactory; therefore, the management was constrained to terminate his engagement.

2.3. To substantiate their respective cases, the respondent-workman examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8, whereas the petitioner- management examined one witness as RW1 and marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R29. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court passed the impugned award, aggrieved by which the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Mr. Anand Gopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner-management, advanced the following submissions:

i. The respondent was terminated on 21.11.2011, but the dispute under Section 2A of the Act, 1947 was raised only on 30.10.2015 before the Conciliation Officer. Hence, on the date of raising the dispute, it was barred by limitation under Section 2A(3) of the Act, 1947.

ii.The respondent does not fall within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act, 1947, as he was appointed only as an apprentice trainee for a period of 42 months in accordance with the company’s apprenticeship scheme.

iii.The respondent had voluntarily abandoned service, and despite several opportunities afforded by the management, he failed to resume duty, forcing the management to terminate him.

4. In support of the above submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:

i. D. Sathiya Narayanan v. Presiding Officer (W.P. Nos. 33573–33580 of 2024, dated 27.07.2023)

ii.D. Babu v. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Vellore & another (W.P. No. 302 of 2017, dated 31.08.2023)

iii.S. Sarathy v. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Vellore & another (W.P. No. 15200 of 2010, dated 29.11.2023)

iv.K.S. Karthikeyan v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,