RAMESHBHAI MAGANBHAI CHAUHAN Vs. ELECTROTHARM MACHINE PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, on 30.9.2006 in Reference (LCA) No. 679 of 1993 whereby the reference was rejected. The facts of the case are the petitioner was appointed as helper Mechanical on 22.5.1990 with the respondent. He was terminated from service with effect from 1.8.1992. The petitioner, therefore, lodged complaint before the Conciliation Officer, Ahmedabad, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the dispute could not be resolved, the same was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The petitioner submitted statement of claim and filed documentary evidences in support of his claim. The respondent submitted their written statement before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record and hearing both the parties, rejected the Reference which is under challenge before this Court.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Prabhakar Upadyay appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that initially the workman was appointed as Helper Mechanic with the respondent on 22.5.1990 and thereafter, illegally and wrongfully a form as apprentice was taken from the present petitioner after completion of one year service. He has further argued that the workman was terminated from his service from 1.8.1992 without following due procedure of law as contemplated under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has further submitted that even though the petitioner was appointed as Helper Mechanic, no documentary evidence in the nature of identity card, pay slip or any other evidence could be produced so that he could show that he was in employment with the respondent and therefore the workman is not able to prove his case. On the contrary, his services are attributed in the nature of apprenticeship by the respondent and in such cases the Labour Court is required to appreciate the evidence minutely considering his lower footing. In that view of the matter, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is required to be interfered with.

(3.) Against the aforesaid arguments, learned advocate Mr. Paul appearing for the respondent has argued that the present petitioner was never employed as workman who comes within the definition of workman under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the contrary, he was employed for a period of one year commencing from 1.8.1991 as apprentice and therefore provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the evidence on record. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision of the National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. V. Lakshminarayanan, 2007 1 SCC 214 , particularly, paragraph Nos. 2, 17, 18 and 19 which are reproduced below: