RAJENDRAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges an award of the Principal labour Court, Madras passed in I. D. No. 11 of 1990, dated 31. 5. 1991.

(2.) THE facts which led to the filing of this writ petition are: THE petitioner alleges in the affidavit that he was appointed as Sub Editor on 15. 2. 1982 under the second respondent management ofa popular Tamil Daily'dina Malar'and that he was allowed to sign the daily attendance register of Proof Reading section of the second respondent. It seems the petitioner herein is an M. A degree-holder and has passed two years course of Diploma in Journalism and he paid a sum of Rs. 500 to the second respondent management as security deposit and a receipt therefor was given to him. It seems the petitioner was not allowed to enter into the office of the second respondent management on 15. 10. 1982 and on 19. 10. 1982 the petitioner issued a lawyer's notice to the second respondent. THEreafter the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Sec. 2 (A)of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Officer, Kuralagam , Madras and a Conciliation failure report was filed by the concerned Conciliation Officer on 4. 3. 1982. When the Government refused to refer the case of the petitioner under Sec. 10 of the Industrial disputes Act, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition in w. P. No. 8143 of 1983 and the said writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Nainarsun-daram , J. (as he then was) and Bellie , J. by order dated 19. 9. 1989. In view of the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in the abovemen-tioned writ petition the Government referred the dispute of the petitioner before the Labour Court on 21. 11. 1989. After reference, the petitioner examined himself as a witness and one witness has been examined on the side of the second respondent Management. THE petitioner filed 13 exhibits on his side and the respondent management filed 15 exhibits before the Labour Court , Madras . Upon a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court, Madras has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was only an apprentice in the management of the second respondent and that he has not worked to the satisfaction of the management and on those grounds the Labour Court has decided that the non-employment of the petitioner is correct.

(3.) I have given my careful consideration to the arguments of Mr. R. Rajendran the party appearing in person and of Mr. S. Ramasubramaniam the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent management. The petitioner has produced before the Labour Cour t a receipt dated 15. 2. 1982 issued by the respondent management which has been marked as Ex. W-3. The receipt reads thus :'. . . . . . Received a sum of Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred only) from Mr. R. Rajendran towards security deposit. Certificates is also received. and it is under our custody. . . . . . . .' ; According to the facts of the case on hand, the short question that arose for consideration before the Labour Court was whether the petitioner herein was appointed as sub editor or as an apprentice on 15. 2. 1982. The stipend register which has been produced before the Labour Court shows that the petitioner has been receiving rs. 350 per month. Other documents with regard to E. M. P. and E. S. I. have been produced which show that the date of joining was only 1. 4. 1982. Almost in all the documents produced before the Labour Court it is seen that the petitioner was working as an apprentice trainee. On the basis of the materials produced before the Labour Court it came to the conclusion that the petitioner worked in the second respondent management as an apprentice from 1. 4. 1982 and not from 15. 2. 1982. The contention of the petitioner that he was working as sub editor from 15. 2. 1982 has been rejected by the Labour Court the first respondent herein. The register Ex. M. W. 11 which has been produced before the Labour Court had been duly considered by the Labour Court and it is seen that the petitioner's name did not find place in the said register till March, 1982. An argument was put forth before the Labour Court that the second respondent management has got a right to terminate the apprenticeship of the petitioner and the second respondent management has come to the conclusion only after considering the performance of the petitioner's work during the period of apprenticeship. For that purpose certain letters of the petitioner which have been marked as Exs. M-3, M-4 and M-5 have been produced before the Labour Court . According to the learned counsel for the second respondent management those letters would prove that the petitioner was not working properly. The above mentioned letters related to the leave i. e. , weekly holidays. Ex. M-3 is the letter written by the petitioner stating that he was not able to attend the office on 10. 9. 1982 and other two letters Exs. M-4 and M-5 related to weekly holidays. The second respondent management has also produced Ex. M-6 with regard to the wrong publication of the news item stating that it is due to carelessness of the petitioner. Another letter Ex. M-8 produced before the Labour Court would show that in view of the aforesaid news item all advertisement to the second respondent management have been stopped. On this basis the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not worked properly as Proof Reader. On the ground that the petitioner has not performed his duties satisfactorily and efficiently as proof reader and also has' not performed his work with due care the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner's apprenticeship had been terminated by the second respondent. In my view, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion only after weighing the evidence adduced and on analysing the fact that in view of the petitioner's carelessness as proof reader he has been terminated from the apprenticeship and there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the second respondent terminating the services of the petitioner. Therefore I am of the view that the Labour Court has come to the correct conclusion that the non-employment of the petitioner is correct. Also I am not able to agree with the arguments of the petitioner, who argues as party in person that his employment with the second respondent management was in the month of February, 1982 and not in April, 1982. On the materials produced before the Labour Court in my view the Labour Court has come to the correct conclusion that the petitioner had joined only as apprentice in the month of April, 1982 and had received only stipend and that due to the unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner his apprenticeship had been terminated by the second respondent management.