POWER BUILD LTD Vs. DA SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner employer M/s. Power Build Limited has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Anand dated 04. 01. 1999 in Reference (LCA) No. 122 of 1992 directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with full back-wages with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.

(2.) FACTS leading the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are that the respondent came to be engaged in the petitioner Company as Apprentice in the trade of machinist for a period of three years with effect from 01. 08. 1981 and that contract / agreement was also entered into between the parties for a period of three years i. e. 01. 08. 1981 to 31. 07. 1984 and the said agreement was also signed by the respondent workmen. After completion of about three years, the respondent came to be relieved from 31. 07. 1984. The respondent raised industrial dispute and reference was numbered as Reference (LCA) No. 104 of 1984 which was referred to Labour Court, Nadiad which was subsequently renumbered as Reference LCA No. 122 of 1992 on establishment of Labour Court, Anand. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that though he was appointed as apprentice but he was never given benefit of apprentice and agreement / contract was not registered which was required to be registered under the Apprentice Act. The Labour Court accepted the contention on behalf of the workmen and held that as agreement / contract was not registered as required under the Apprenticeship Act, the respondent workmen cannot be treated as Apprentice and therefore, he would be considered as a Workmen and entitled to protection of labour laws and as there is breach of Section 25 (f) of the Industrial Dispute Act, the Labour Court passed the impugned judgment directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with full back-wages. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the petitioner preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) MR. KUNAN Naik, learned Advocate appearing for M/s. Trivedi and Gupta, for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly the respondent was appointed as Apprentice which is even borne out from the examination-in-chief and cross before the Labour Court and he was appointed as apprentice for a period of three years from 01. 08. 1981 and even contract / agreement was signed by the respondent and after completion of three years, he was relieved and therefore, the Labour Court has committed an error in not treating the respondent as apprentice merely on the ground that agreement / contract of apprentice was not registered under the Apprentice Act. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U. P. State State Electricity Board v/s. Shiv Mohan Singh and Anr. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 402; Mukesh K. Tripathi v/s. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC and Ors. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 387 and Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. V/s. Bhola Singh reported in (2005) 2 SCC 470. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application.