LAWS(MAD)-2007-7-363

MANAGEMENT OF SAMSON RUBBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

Decided On July 20, 2007
MANAGEMENT OF SAMSON RUBBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT CHENNAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of the above writ petition are as follows: THE second respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.139 of 1992 before the first respondent over his non-employment. THE case of the second respondent is that though he was doing his work as a permanent worker, since he had joined the workers union and raised a charter of demand, the management dubbing him as an apprentice terminated his services just to victimise him for the trade union activities.

(2.) THE Management/the petitioner in the above writ petition contested the claim of the second respondent contending that the second respondent was an apprentice in the Dropping Section of the Management and he was taken as apprentice only at his own request and on his executing the apprenticeship agreement dated 31.08.1998 and the apprenticeship period was for three years. According to the Management, the second respondent was undergoing training in labeling work and he was paid stipend during the period of apprenticeship and the last drawn stipend was Rs.3000/- per month Clause (10) of the apprenticeship agreement provides that the training does not constitute any commitment in the regular employment in the company clause (3) of the Apprenticeship agreement provides that the Management will have the right to terminate the services on completion of the training period of the apprentice and during the period of his apprenticeship also his service can be terminated without assigning any reason. It was further contended by the Management that in pursuance of the contract of apprenticeship Ex.M.1 and Ex.M.4, the Management by order dated 01.04.1991 terminated the services of the second respondent, as the apprenticeship period of the second respondent was over.

(3.) HEARD Mr .D. Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.