Madras High Court
S.Sarathy vs The Presiding Officer on 29 November, 2023
WP.No.15200 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 29.11.2023
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
WP.No.15200 of 2010
S.Sarathy
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court,
Vellore.
2.The Management,
Axles India Ltd.,
Cheyyar Division,
Nemadi Post, Cheyyar.
....Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the files of
the 1st Respondent in I.D.No.167 of 2006 and quash its impugned Award
made therein dated 04.05.2009 insofar as the 1st Respondent has negatived
the claim of the Petitioner for reinstatement in service, with continuity of
service, with back wages and with all other attendant and consequential
benefits.
Page No.1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.15200 of 2010
For Petitioner : Mr.K.G.Vipra Narayanan
For Respondents : R1- Court
R2- Mr.A.P.Venkatesh Prasad
for M/S. AGAM Legal counsel
ORDER
Writ petition is filed by the claimant challenging the Award of the
Labour Court dated 04.05.2009 rejecting his claim petition filed for the
relief of reinstatement in service with continuity of service, backwages and
other benefits to the petitioner.
2. The writ petitioner will be referred to as Petitioner and 2 nd
respondent as Management.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the management
factory at Cheyyar vide its order dated 14.11.2002. The petitioner was
engaged as company apprentice on consolidated wages of Rs.2,650/- plus
300/- as conveyance allowance. According to the petitioner, though he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
worked as company apprentice in the factory, he was actually doing the
production job directly. According to the petitioner, the term company
apprentice was misnomer and it was assigned to him only to deny the
status of regular worker. On 20.04.2002, while the petitioner was in night
shift, he met with an accident in the factory for which he took treatment
and the management also signed the medical card for his treatment.
According to the petitioner, he was advised by the doctors to take complete
rest for a period of six months and during the period of leave the
management pressurised him to submit his resignation, which he refused.
The petitioner wrote two letters to the management for which there was no
response and thereafter during the 1st week of October 2004, when he
reported for work, he was denied permission stating that his services were
terminated on 13.05.2004. As all his repeated requests to the management
for re-employment failed, he raised the Industrial Dispute which was
referred to the Labour Court in I.D.No.167/2006.
4. The management contested the claim petition by filing counter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
statement. According to the management, the petitioner was engaged as
company apprentice vide order dated 14.11.2002. The apprenticeship of the
petitioner was extended vide order dated 14.05.2003, from 14.05.2003 to
13.11.2003 and further extended for a period of six months vide order
dated 14.11.2003 from 14.11.2003 to 13.05.2004. The petitioner was paid
consolidated stipend of Rs.2,650/- and conveyance allowance of Rs.300/-.
According to the respondents, nothing was heard from the petitioner from
21.04.2004 and as his apprenticeship ceased automatically from 14.05.2004
as per terms of the apprenticeship order, no action was taken by it to
ascertain the availability of the petitioner. It was only after a delay of two
years, notice of conciliation was received by the management. According to
the management, the petitioners services were not terminated but the
apprenticeship automatically came to an end with effect from 14.05.2004 by
efflux of time. The management denied that the petitioner was a workman
under Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence pleaded that
the dispute itself was not maintainable. The management filed an
additional statement pleading delay and laches among other grounds.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The petitioner filed a rejoinder in support of his claim that he was a
workman in terms of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as
such was entitled to maintain the industrial dispute before the Labour
Court.
6. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner examined himself as W.W1
and marked 15 documents in support of his case and management
examined one witness M.W1 and marked Ex.M1 to Ex.M15 in support of
its case.
7. The Labour Court on an appreciation of the entire evidence on
record and on consideration of both legal and factual aspects of the case
dismissed the dispute. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, the
petitioner has filed the above writ petition.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the award of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Labour Court was erroneous in as much as the Labour Court failed to
note that though the petitioner was designated as an apprentice he was
actually directly engaged in production job and therefore he was covered
by the definition of workman under Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes
Act. According to the learned counsel, the finding of the Labour Court that
the petitioner was only a apprentice and not a workman was unsustainable
on the facts of the case. The counsel submitted that the Labour Court failed
to note that the Management was in the habit of appointing apprentice to
do regular job. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that finding of the Labour Court that the petitioners case was covered
under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disptues Act was erroneous. The
learned counsel therefore submitted that the award of the Labour Court
deserved to be set aside.
9. The learned counsel for the Management submitted that Labour
Court on the basis of the appointment order and the extension orders had
rightly concluded that the petitioner was only an apprentice and not a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
workman under Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned
counsel further submitted that assuming that the petitioner was a
workman, the petitioner's service having come to an end on 13.05.2004, the
exception found in Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act was
applicable and so the petitioner was not entitled to any relief under the I.D.
Act.
10. I have heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials
placed on record.
11. The petitioner was appointed as a 'company apprentice' under the
company's certified standing order on 14.11.2002. As per the appointment
order, the petitioner was paid consolidated stipend of Rs.2,600/- and the
period of apprenticeship was six months. Thereafter, under Ex.W9 and
Ex.W10, the petitioner's apprenticeship was extended. Under Ex.W10, the
apprenticeship was extended till 13.05.2004 on the same terms and
conditions as the original appointment order. In my view as the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appointment order and the extension order's are available, the enquiry
whether the petitioner was apprentice or workman is not necessary as the
documents' speak for themselves. Only in the absence of an appointment
order, the Court can enquire into the factual aspects as to whether the
employment was regular or that of an apprentice. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs.
Lakshminarayanan reported in 2007 (1) SCC 214, clearly held that only when
the letter of appointment was not available, the Labour court could
embark on the exercise as to whether the workman was in effect a
“trainee” under the Apprentices Act, 1961, or a “workman” within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of the 1947 Act. The Court further held that
assuming that the respondent was a workman, within the meaning of
Section 2(S) of the I.D Act, 1947, on account of his contractual tenure, his
case would be covered within the exception of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D.
Act. The Court hence held that Section 25-F of the Act had no application
to the respondent's case. In my view, the said Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court applies squarely to the facts of the present case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. As stated supra, in the extension order dated 14.11.2003, extension
was given for a period of six months from 14.11.2003 to 13.05.2004. As
rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Management, as the
tenure of the petitioner ended by efflux of time on 31.05.2004, even
assuming that the petitioner was a workman, within the meaning of the
term workman under Section 2(S) of the I.D. Act, the exception (bb) to
Section 2 (oo) would apply and hence the management had no obligation
to follow the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.
In the light of the above discussions, I find no infirmity in the
findings of fact as well as law of Labour Court and therefore the writ
petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
29.11.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dsn
N.MALA, J.
dsn
To
The Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court,
Vellore.
29.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
