SPENCER AND CO LTD Vs. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the Spencer and Company Ltd., 769, Anna Salai, Madras and its Branch Manager respectively.

(2.) The second respondent was appointed as a Salesman Trainee for a period of six months with effect from 22.2.1982 for a stipend of Rs. 400/- per mensem. Ext. P1 is the order of appointment. The period of training was being extended and it was terminated with effect from 15.9.1986 on payment of one month's stipend in lieu of notice and a compensation amount of Rs. 2,450/-. The second respondent filed an appeal under S.18(2) of the Kerala Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') before the first respondent, namely the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kozhikode (originally the appeal was filed before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Trichur which was transferred to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kozhikode). ft was contended before the 1st respondent that the second respondent was not an employee as defined under S.2(6) of the Act. He was engaged only as a salesman trainee purely on provisional basis, that he is not entitled to question the termination of his traineeship, that the termination was pursuant to the decision of the management to reorganise the functions of the company's business on more economical lines, and that the second respondent is not entitled to any relief.

(3.) The first respondent allowed the appeal as per the original of Ext. P2 dated. 12.3.1990 and it was directed that the second respondent shall be reinstated with continuity of service and backwages and in default, to pay a compensation of Rs.63,450/- inclusive of back wages, notice pay, D.A. etc. That order of the first respondent is challenged in this original petition on the grounds that the second respondent was not an employee under S.2(6) of the Act, that the second respondent was mainly travelling for canvassing business for the company and he comes within the exemption provided under S.3(1) of the Act, that the letter of appointment was misinterpreted by the Authority, that the D.A. awarded is excessive and that the termination was quite valid and it is in accordance with the terms of the traineeship or appointment.