RAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award of the Labour Court dated June 18, 1991.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present writ petition in brief are that petitioner was engaged as apprentice to undergo apprenticeship training in Indian Fertilizer Corporation Limited, Phulpur, District Allahabad under the provisions of Section 4 of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961. The contract of Apprenticeship was executed and signed by the petitioner and the employer as provided under Section 4 of the Act for two years training . It is alleged by the petitioner that the first contract was signed by one Sri N.P. Sinha on behalf of the respondents. Subsequently after the transfer of Sri N.P. Sinha that contract was canceled and the second contract was written and signed by Sri R.R. Rawat, who had succeeded in place of Sri N.P. Sinha as Manager Personnel and Administration (I) in the concern of the respondent No. 3. It is alleged that although this document was signed subsequently but it was ante dated and the same date was mentioned in the contract on whcih it was signed by Sri N.P. Sinha as such it was an ante-dated agreement. Therefore, this agreement was illegal and since there was not valid and legal contract between the parties, the petitioner is not bound by the terms of the agreement and since he has worked for two years, his services cannot be terminated without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and without payment of retrenchment compensation as provided under Section 6-N of the Act. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the appropriate authority which was referred under Section 4-K of the Act to the Labour Court for adjudication before the Labour Court. The contention of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that since no notice or pay or compensation for retrenchment was given to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Juniors to the petitioner are working on the post and Petitioner's services were terminated without any complaint against him and without giving any opportunity of hearing, therefore, the termination of the services of the petitioner after two years is illegal.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent in which it has been stated that the petitioner was never appointed as Assistant Technician by the respondent No. 3 and that the respondent No. 3 was originally constituted under Multi Unit Co-operative Societies Act and was subsequently on the enactment of Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 it has been deemed to be constituted under the Act of 1984. Sri N.P. Sinha executed apprenticeship contract with the petitioner not under any confusion, but subsequently there was some technical defect in the contract, therefore, Sri R.R. Rawat who succeeded Sri N.P. Sinha after his transfer signed the second contract which was sent for registration to the Assistant Apprenticeship Advisor as provided under Section 4-A of the Act. Therefore, the contract was not illegal and since the apprenticeship training of the petitioner has already commenced from July 14, 1988 in the revised contract the same date was given as the date of the contract and it cannot be said to be illegal, or ante-dated contract.