General Secretary Hindustan ... vs The General Manager Hindustan ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2222 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                    DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
                            AND
   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

              W.A. No. 100014/2016 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:

GENERAL SECRETARY, HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD.
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, AT PO KANAGALE,
TQ. HUKKERI, BELAGAVI DIST. REPRESENTED
BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT SRI C.A. KARADE,
THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
                                        -        APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.L. MATTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE GENERAL MANAGER,
HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD.,
PO KANAGALE, TQ. HUKKERI,
BELAGAVI DIST.
                                      -  RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. C.K. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI MALLIKARJNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 13.08.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P. NO. 64995/2009 & ETC.

      THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
'RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT' ON 02.02.2022 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, S.G. PANDIT J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  2



                           JUDGEMENT

The appellant-General Secretary, Hindustan Latex

Ltd. Employees' Association (for short 'Association') is in

appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act,

1961 assailing the order dated 13.08.2015 passed in W.P.

No. 64995/2009 whereby the learned Single Judge

dismissed the writ petition filed by the Association

challenging the judgment and award passed in Reference

No. 4/2005 of the learned Additional Labour Court,

Hubballi, which rejected the reference, i.e., Whether the

Hindustan Latex Ltd. Employees' Association, Kanagala,

Tq: Hukkeri, Dist: Belgaum, is justified in placing a

demand on Hindustan Latex Ltd. Kanagala, Tq: Hukkeri,

Dist.: Belgaum, in confirming the service of 18 worker

trainees?". The parties would be referred as per their

ranking before the writ Court. The appellant and the

respondent were the petitioner and respondent

respectively before the writ Court.

2. The appellant, a registered trade union, submitted a

charter of demand demanding confirmation of 18 trainee

workmen who were appointed initially in the year 1995 as

trainees. The respondent immediately on submission of

the charter of demand terminated the services of 18

workmen trainees without following the protection granted

to the workmen under Section 25F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'I.D. Act'), which led to a

dispute before the Conciliation Officer and conciliation

having failed, a reference was made by the Government to

the Labour Court. The Labour Court on enquiry passed the

impugned award dated 18.12.2008 rejecting the reference

holding that the 18 workers are not entitled to

confirmation or regularization. Assailing the said award,

the petitioner-trade union was before this Court in W.P.

No. 64995/2009. The learned single Judge under the

impugned order confirmed the award passed by the Labour

Court holding that the trainee workmen are not appointed

against sanctioned posts and not entitled to regularization.

Challenging both the orders passed by the Labour Court as

well as the learned Single Judge, the petitioner-trade union

is in appeal before this Court.

3. Heard learned counsel Sri S.L. Matti for the appellant

and learned counsel Sri C.K. Subramanya, on behalf of Sri

Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel for the

respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri S.L. Matti

would submit that the 18 trainee workmen were appointed

on the names being sponsored by the Employment

Exchange and after the interview, on merit, they were

appointed as workmen and they were discharging the

duties of a permanent worker. They were granted all

benefits entitled to by a regular workman, they were no

more trainees and they are to be considered as workmen.

It is submitted that even though the 18 workers were

initially appointed for six months they were continued for a

very long time as workmen. The nature of work carried on

by the 18 workmen trainees was the work carried on by a

regular worker. Further, the learned counsel would

contend that when the workmen-trainees were working for

a long period they could not have been terminated without

following the procedure prescribed under Section 25F of

the I.D. Act and termination would amount to illegal

retrenchment.

5. The learned counsel would also contend that the

practice followed by the respondent-management would

amount to unfair trade practice, in that when the trainee

workers were working for more than 9-10 years they are

to be considered as permanent workers. Referring to the

Fifth Schedule of Section 2(ra) of the I.D. Act, continuing

the workers for long years depriving them of the status

and privileges of permanent workmen would be an unfair

labour practice. In that regard the learned counsel relied

upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court

reported in ILR 2000 KAR 4356 (Chief General

Manager, RBI Vs. Presiding Officer and Another).

Further, the learned counsel also relied upon the Apex

Court decision reported in 2003 LAB. I. C. 2483 (M/s

Trambak Rubber Industries Ltd., Vs. Nashik Workers

Union and Others), to contend that the respondent-

employer resorted to unfair labour practice. Thus, the

learned counsel for the appellant would pray for allowing

the writ petition and to set aside both the award passed by

the Labour Court as well as the order passed by the

learned single Judge and to allow the reference.

6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Subramanya

appearing on behalf of the respondent management

submits that the 18 workmen on behalf of whom the

appellant-trade union raised the dispute, were appointed

as trainees and they were continued as trainees. They had

not acquired the status of workmen. Further, it is

submitted that they were never terminated from service

and on the expiry of the trainee period they were not

continued further.

7. The learned counsel would submit that since the 18

workmen trainees were appointed initially as trainees with

the condition that the training duration would be six

months from the date of reporting and they were

appointed temporarily for a limited period. The learned

counsel would submit that the advertisement in pursuance

to which the trainees were appointed as trainees, had

made it clear that the respondent Company needed

trainees on a daily wage basis. Along with the applications

received in pursuance of the advertisement, the 18

workers whose names were sponsored by the District

Employment Exchange were also considered for

appointment as trainees. The 18 trainee workmen who

joined as trainee workmen on accepting the terms and

conditions were aware of the fact that they had no right to

claim permanent status or regularization. It is mainly

contended that the 18 workmen were only trainees and

they were not appointed to any permanent post. The

Managing Director had no power to recruit an employee

permanently against a permanent post.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the

decision of the Apex Court reported in 2005(2) SCC 470

(Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. V. Bhola Singh) to contend

that trainee workmen have no right to be absorbed in

service or to seek permanent status.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

on perusal of the appeal papers the only point which falls

for consideration is:

Whether the learned single Judge is justified in confirming the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court rejecting the reference, i.e., as to whether the appellant-trade union is justified in placing a demand on respondent-management in seeking confirmation of the service of 18 trainee workers?

10. The answer to the above point would be in the

affirmative for the following reasons.

11. It is seen from the appeal papers that the 18

workers on whose behalf the appellant-trade union is

before this Court, were appointed initially as Trainee on

receiving the names from the Employment Exchange.

While appointing the 18 workmen-Trainees the respondent

management had interviewed them and appointed them

initially for six months with a condition that training will

not confer on them any right or otherwise for consideration

for regular employment in any unit of the company.

12. The 18 workmen were indeed continued for nine long

years. Merely because the trainee workmen were

continued for a few years, they have no right to seek

regularization as Trainee workmen. Merely because the

workmen Trainees were paid all the benefits which were

available to the workmen, they cannot claim the status of

workmen as defined under Section 2(S) of the I.D. Act.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dampur Sugar Mills

(supra), has categorically held that a Trainee or Apprentice

has no right to be absorbed in services. The learned single

Judge has taken note of the fact that the workmen Trainee

were appointed as trainees and as they were not appointed

to a permanent vacancy, relied upon the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi

reported in (2006) 1 SCC 1 and has rightly concluded

that the 18 Trainee workmen were not entitled to

absorption or regularization.

14. The Labour Court on appreciation of the

documentary and oral evidence placed on record by both

the appellant as well as the respondent concluded that the

claimants were appointed temporarily for a limited period

and limited work. On perusal of the order of appointment

and the terms and conditions mentioned therein, the

labour Court has at paragraph no. 19 has observed as

under:

"On perusing the above terms and conditions, the respondent management before accepting the offer has made it clear that the period will be for limited and it is only on temporary basis. It is also made clear that the training will not confer any right to claim the status of a permanent employee in any unit of the company. It is made clear that the training can not be considered for regular employment in any unit of the company. The services in the company are governed by the company rules and orders in force from time to time regarding the service conditions. Thus, it is clear that these workers/ trainees were appointed on daily wage basis for limited period. The claimants, having fully understood the terms

and conditions, have joined the service. Under such circumstances, the terms and conditions bind on all the 18 claimants."

On the available material, the Labour Court has also

concluded that the workmen Trainee has failed to establish

that they were terminated by the respondent management

and were discontinued on the expiry of the period of work.

Therefore, it held that compliance of Section 25F of I.D.

The act would not arise. When the Tribunal has come to

such a conclusion based on the material on record which is

confirmed by the learned single Judge, we are not inclined

to interfere with such finding as there is no cogent material

placed to disturb the said finding.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that

the workmen Trainee were continued for nine long years

extracting the work of a permanent worker and

terminating them without providing permanent status,

which would amount to unfair labour practice. The

evidence on record indicates that as required the workmen

Trainees were provided with the facilities like P.F., bonus,

etc. But, while engaging the workmen Trainees as

trainees, the respondent had made it clear that they have

no right to seek absorption or regularization and the

trainee period would be six months initially. Subsequently,

whenever there was a need for the engagement of the

trainee depending on the work the 18 workmen were

engaged as Trainees. As held by the Apex Court, the

Trainee/ Apprentice have no right to seek regularization or

absorption. Moreover, the trainee workmen were not

appointed against a permanent vacant post. The

appellant-trade union has failed to establish by producing

cogent material to establish that the Trainee workmen

were appointed against a permanent post for their

entitlement to regularization or absorption. Hence, either

illegal retrenchment or practising unfair trade practices

would not arise.

16. We have gone through the decision relied upon by

the learned counsel for the appellant in Chief General

Manager, RBI (supra) and it could be distinguishable. In

the said case, the initial appointment was as workmen and

they were continued for long years. The workers in the

present case cannot compare themselves to the petitioners

in the above-referred case since the workmen in the

present case are Trainees. In the case referred to above,

the workers were engaged initially as casual labourers and

were continued for a fairly long period.

17. The fifth Schedule to Rule 2(ra) of I.D. Act Sl. No. 10

refers to employee workmen as Badali/ casuals or

temporaries who are continued for years with the object of

depriving them of status and privileges of permanent

workers. In the instant case, it is not so. The 18 workmen

were continued as Trainees whenever the need of Trainees

had arisen in the respondent management.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point

out any error or illegality in the order passed by the

learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has

considered the contentions raised by the petitioner-trade

union and answered the same. The Labour Court has also

on consideration of the material evidence on record has

concluded that the 18 workmen are not entitled to

regularization nor for absorption as there is no master and

servant relationship as they were trainees and also they

were not appointed against the permanent vacancy.

19. No material or ground is made out to upset the

finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court as well as the

learned single Judge's order confirming the award. The

appeal stands rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE bvv