Allahabad High Court
U.P. State Electricity Board And Anr vs Presiding Oficer, Labourt Court-Iv ... on 28 March, 2017
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?AFR Court No. - 26 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1239 of 1998 Petitioner :- U.P. State Electricity Board And Anr Respondent :- Presiding Oficer, Labourt Court-Iv Kanpur And Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjit Saxena,P.K.Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S.N. Dubey,Suman Sirohi Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
List has been revised. None appears on behalf of the contesting respondent i.e. workman.
The petitioner U.P. State Electricity Board has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, by which the Labour Court has set aside the plea taken by the employer that the private respondent herein was not a "workman", but an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 on the ground that the employers could not produce any registered agreement of apprenticeship, and therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No. 3, Santosh Kumar Dixit was engaged as apprentice. The Labour Court has relied upon two judgments to come to this conclusion namely, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board vs Basant Kumar Pandey, 1990 (60) FLR 39 and the judgment rendered in the case of Karuna Shankar Tripathi vs State of U.P. and other, 1992 (65) FLR 203.
Mr P.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners-UPSEB has produced before this Court the judgment rendered in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board vs Shiv Mohan Singh and another, 2004 AIR SCW 5623, wherein the Supreme Court has held that nature and character of the apprentice is nothing but that of a trainee and he is supposed to enter into a contract and by virtue of that contract he is to serve for a fixed form. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Apprentices Act only lays down that such a contract should be registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser, but by non-registration of the contract, the position of the apprentice is not changed to that of a workman.
It has been observed by the Supreme Court in Shiv Mohan Singh (supra) that the Apprentices Act by virtue of section 18 has clarified that apprentices are trainees and not workers. It clearly lays down that if an apprentice trainee is undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated trade in an establishment, he shall be a trainee and not a worker and the labour laws shall not apply in relation to such an apprentice.
Section 20 of the Apprentices Act has also lays down how a dispute arising under the Apprentices Act, 1961 can be settled by referring to the Apprenticeship Adviser. Since for an apprentice, the statutory remedy has been provided in the Act itself, the apprentice cannot raise a dispute before the Labour Court simply because the contract has not been registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser. The Labour Court it will not adjudicate the nature and character of apprentices and make them workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act.
ln the case at hand, respondent No. 3 was engaged as apprentice vide Office Memorandum dated 18.06.1991 and his contract stood terminate automatically after expiry of the period of one year. On 02.07.1996, the Board of apprenticeship training through its Assistant Central Apprenticeship Adviser North Region, Kanpur issued an Office Memorandum indicating clearly that respondent No. 3 had undergone training in the U.P.S.E.B. under the Apprentices Act, 1961 and his registration number was also indicated. After about three years from the date of its engagement, respondent No. 3 raised an industrial dispute, which was referred under section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 4, U.P. Kanpur.
In the Adjudication Case No. 1 of 1996, written statement was filed by the petitioners, the UPSEB, it clearly mentioned that respondent No. 3 merely was a trainee and there was no relationship of employer and employee and also referred to sections 18 and 22 of the Apprentices Act, 1961. There was no obligation on the part of the employer under the Apprentices Act to offer any job to such an apprentice after completion of period of training.
The Labour Court, however, rejected the stand taken by the employers only on the ground that apprenticeship agreement was not registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser and has relied upon the judgments as aforesaid delivered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and by this Court. Both the judgements, as has been indicated herein-above, have been overruled by the judgment rendered in the case of State of U.P. vs Shiv Mohan Singh and another (supra).
The law has now been settled with respect to apprentices engaged in the same establishment and on identical facts.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that registration of apprenticeship agreement is not necessary. This Court is of the view that the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
The award impugned in the writ petition dated 01.04.1997 published on 21.10.1997 is set aside.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 28.3.2017 Sazia