CHAUHAN MEHBUB OSMAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal preferred by the petitioner under clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 17th August, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in special Civil Application No. 10335 of 1999.

(2.) THE appellant was engaged by the respondent-State Government under the Deputy Executive Engineer, Junagadh as an apprentice in the trade of helper for a period of three years from 1st Aprii, 1989 to 31st March, 1992. During the period of apprenticeship, he was paid stipend. After completion of the period of apprenticeship, he was discharged. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant raised industrial dispute which came to be referred to the Labour court, Junagadh and registered as Reference [lcj] no. 174 of 1994. Before the Labour Court, the appellant submitted statement of claim. According to the appellant, he was employed by the respondent as a Helper in the year 1987. He worked as such from 1987 till 1. 989r when he came to be engaged as an apprentice in the trade of Helper. The Appellant was therefore, an employee of the respondent, and a "workman" within the meaning of section 2[sj of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as, "the Act". His service was terminated without following the procedure as envisaged by section 25f of the Act, He, therefore, claimed right to regular employment and the backwages. The said claim was contested by the respondent. The respondent maintained that' the appellant was engaged as an apprentice under the Apprentices Act, 1961 on the terms and conditions contained in the apprenticeship agreement. On completion of the apprenticeship, he had no right to employment under the respondent nor was he under obligation to accept employment under the respondent. His apprenticeship was terminated in accordance with the terms of the contract. The provisions contained In the Act, therefore, were not attracted.

(3.) THE Labour Court, by Its judgment and award dated 27th January, 1999 held that the appellant was a "workman" within the meaning of section 2 (8)of the Act. The termination of apprenticeship was retrenchment within the meaning of section 2[oo]of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of section 25p of the Act were attracted. Admittedly, the service of the appellant was terminated in violation of the provision of section 25f of the Act. The Labour Court, therefore, decided the Reference in favour of the workman directed the respondent to reinstate the appellant in service with full back-wages and consequential benefits.