JBM AUTO SYSTEM PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award dated 03.08.2016 passed in I.D.No.218 of 2011 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The writ petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of auto components for automobile industry, especially for Ford India Limited, situated at S.P.Koil Post in Chengalput District. The respondent has installed sophisticated machineries which need special skill and on the job training in the manufacturing process. Any experience gained by a workman in the engineering industry would be of no use for operating the sophisticated machineries installed in the petitioner establishment. All the permanent workman working in the respondent establishment have undergone extensive training in the petitioner establishment. Similarly, if a trainee is not confirmed in service, he is deemed to continue in the training process. It is contended that there is no automatic confirmation in the service, after the end of training period. The fact remains that the second respondent/workman has entered into the service of the writ petitioner/Company as a trainee on 01.05.2004. The period of training was stipulated as 3 years. On completion of 3 years training period, the second respondent/workman was allowed to continue the training for a further period of one year and four months. Thereafter, he was terminated by the writ petitioner/Management through an order dated 22.12.2008. A cheque for a sum of Rs.2,736/- was enclosed along with the order of termination. The second respondent raised a dispute in I.D.No.218 of 2011 before the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai and on adjudication, the Labour Court found that the termination of the second respondent/workman was in violation of the mandatory provisions under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The findings of the Labour Court would reveal that petitioner by engaging workman as trainees, extracted regular work from them for some period of time and then threw them away by taking advantage of the sham and nominal conditions of service. This is nothing but unfair labour practice. Thus, a conclusion was arrived that the termination of the writ petitioner from service was unlawful and consequently, it was set aside.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner/Company made a submission that they are not seriously disputing the findings of the Labour Court in this regard, more specifically with reference to the mandatory provision under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the disputed fact that the second respondent/workman served in the writ petitioner/Company as a trainee for 3 years and no confirmation order as per the service rules were issued. In the absence of any confirmation order in writing, it is to be construed that the employee was allowed to continue only as a trainee. Further, even in case that no such confirmation order has been issued, the second respondent/workman had served for about one year and 4 months beyond the training period of 3 years. This being the factum, the award of the reinstatement with backwages is not necessary while allowing the services of the workman in the writ petitioner Company.