STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. CHAUHAN RAMJIBHAI KARSANBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned AGP Mr.H.D.Dave appearing on behalf of the petitioner - State of Gujarat and learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia for respondent workman. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference No.469 / 1990 dated 7th February, 2001 wherein termination order has been set aside and granted reinstatement on the post of Draftsman [Civil] or an other equivalent post with continuity of service and full wages with all consequential benefits.

(3.) It may be noted that this Court while dealing with this writ petition, has issued Rule and granted interim relief in terms of Para-13[C] vide order dated 7th November, 2001. Learned AGP Mr.H.D.Dave for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent workman was not a workman appointed by the petitioner but he was appointed as Apprentice under the Apprentices Act, 1961. Learned AGP Mr.Dave submitted that the workman appointed under Section 6 of the Apprentices Act on date 23rd May, 1989 upto 22nd May, 1990 for a period of one year and thereafter, his appointment has been terminated considering the provisions and in terms of the contract and thus, the workman was not appointed on permanent basis but he was appointed as per the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961. It is also contended that as per the Item No.10 of the agreement, the petitioner has not given any assurance to the respondent workman to absorb the petitioner in job. He also contended that therefore there is no question of giving any notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation of any kind to the workman inasmuch as the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D.Act is not applicable in the case of the respondent workman. It is also contended that notice was received from the workman and the same was replied by the petitioner vide communication dated 12th June, 1990 but despite this, the workman has raised the industrial dispute which referred for adjudication. He also submitted that before the labour court, relevant documents were produced by the petitioner vide Exh.7 where appointment order of the respondent workman and the letter showing his name forwarded for examination, was also produced. It is also contended that the petitioner has produced certain documents vide Exh.10, 14, 17, 21, 22, 65, 67, 68 and 69 respectively and after production of these documents on behalf of the petitioner, one witness viz. Deputy Executive Engineer Shri Ajitsinh Anopsinh Jadeja was examined at Exh.35 and on behalf of the respondent workman, certain document produced at Exh.80. Therefore, learned AGP Mr.H.D.Dave submits that once the respondent workman was appointed under the provisions of the Apprentice Act, 1961 and the workman was not in service of the petitioner, then there is no need to comply with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. It is also the case of the petitioner that though there was sufficient documents on record, then also, the same has been ignored by the labour court and on the contrary, the labour court has granted reinstatement in favour of the workman. It is also contended that during the period of one year, the workman was as trainee and he was not receiving any wages from the petitioner but it was an amount of stipend that was being received by the respondent workman and therefore also, the labour court has committed gross error in granting relief in favour of the respondent workman.