Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award of the Labour Court dated June 18, 1991.

2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition in brief are that petitioner was engaged as apprentice to undergo apprenticeship training in Indian Fertilizer Corporation Limited, Phulpur, District Allahabad under the provisions of Section 4 of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961. The contract of Apprenticeship was executed and signed by the petitioner and the employer as provided under Section 4 of the Act for two years training . It is alleged by the petitioner that the first contract was signed by one Sri N.P. Sinha on behalf of the respondents. Subsequently after the transfer of Sri N.P. Sinha that contract was canceled and the second contract was written and signed by Sri R.R. Rawat, who had succeeded in place of Sri N.P. Sinha as Manager Personnel and Administration (I) in the concern of the respondent No. 3. It is alleged that although this document was signed subsequently but it was ante dated and the same date was mentioned in the contract on whcih it was signed by Sri N.P. Sinha as such it was an ante-dated agreement. Therefore, this agreement was illegal and since there was not valid and legal contract between the parties, the petitioner is not bound by the terms of the agreement and since he has worked for two years, his services cannot be terminated without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and without payment of retrenchment compensation as provided under Section 6-N of the Act. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the appropriate authority which was referred under Section 4-K of the Act to the Labour Court for adjudication before the Labour Court. The contention of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that since no notice or pay or compensation for retrenchment was given to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Juniors to the petitioner are working on the post and Petitioner's services were terminated without any complaint against him and without giving any opportunity of hearing, therefore, the termination of the services of the petitioner after two years is illegal.

4. In the objection filed before the Labour Court it has also been stated by the respondent No. 3 that the petitioner was engaged only for two years i.efromJuly 14, 1981 to July 13, 1983 as apprentice and, therefore, he was not a workman as defined under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. It is further stated that under Section 18 of the Apprenticeship Act the apprentices are only trainees and not a worker and the provisions of any labour law shall not apply to such apprentices, therefore, the petitioner cannot be a workman as defined under the U.P.Industrial Disputes Act. It is stated that the petitioner was only engaged as apprentice on July 14, 1981 as per provisions of Apprenticeship Act and the contract was registered before the Apprenticeship Adviser, which was only for two years' therefore, after completion of two years training the petitioner had no right to continue either as a workman or as an employee or as a trainee in the department and the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable and he is not entitled for retrenchment notice compensation and pay etc. as provided under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

5. The Labour Court held that the petitioner was not a workman in the concern of respondent No. 3 nor he was Assistant Technician, nor appointed on the post of Assistant Technician as such no dispute could have been referred to the labour Court as he was not a workman, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the petitioner on July 13, 1983 and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties two points nave emerged for decision by this Court. The first point is that what is the effect of the contract, which was arrived at between the parties under the provisions of Apprenticeship Act and secondly what is the legal right of the petitioner after expiry of two years (the fixed term in the contract) as apprentice.

7. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no doubt the petitioner was appointed on the basis of the contract as provided under Section 4 of the Apprenticeship Act and it was signed by the parties on July 14, 1981 and the petitioner started his training from that day, but since this contract was subsequently cancelled by the respondent No. 3 and a fresh contract was executed between the parties which was ante- dated, it was registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser as provided under Section 4 of the Act, these two contracts are illegal as the first one was cancelled and the second on was ante- dated, therefore, there was no contract between the parties, that the petitioner will continue only for two years as apprentice upto July 13, 1983. His contention is that on July 13, 1983 when period of two years expired the petitioner' s services could not have been terminated as he was workman till date and in the absence of any legal contract as provided under the Apprenticeship Act he was entitled to the benefits of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The second contention of the petitioner is that as the juniors have been retained, who were also placed under the same circumstances as apprentices, therefore, the removal of the petitioner though there are still jobs with the respondent is illegal.