VIJAYALAKSHMI INSECTICIDES AND PLASTICIDES LIMITED HYDERABAD Vs. CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Vijayalakshmi Insecticides and Pesticides Limited, hereinafter referred to as Management, filed W.P. No. 3499/2002 questioning the award dated 3/12/2001 made by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam-lst respondent herein, inl.D. No. 198/1999. In W.P. No.3532/2002, the same petitioner questioned the award made by the 1st respondent in I.D. No. 199/1999 dated 3/12/2001. Likewise, the self-same petitioner in W.P. No.3554/2002 questioned the award made in I.D. No. 102/2000 dated 3/12/2001. 2nd respondent in all these writ petitions had invoked the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent raising industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "Act" in short. Though separate awards were made by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam since common questions of law and fact are involved in all these three writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a Common Order. Facts in brief W.P. No.3499/2002:

(2.) The 2nd respondent filed I.D. No. 198/1999 under Section 2-A(2) of the Act to regularise his services by reinstating him with back wages. The case of the 2nd respondent in nutshell is that he worked as Casual Labour under a contractor V.V.S. Subba Raju, at the plant of the petitioner/Management at Eethakotta from July, 199 5/08/1997 on monthly wages and later the 2nd respondent was appointed as Trainee Helper by the Management by order dated 30/08/1997 for one year on payment of consolidated amount of Rs. 1,300.00 per month subject to extension of further period and also regularisation as per the decision of the Management subject to the satisfaction of the work. The 2nd respondent worked as Casual Labour for two years and while working as Trainee Helper an opportunity was given by extending his services from Aug 30/08/1998 to 30/03/1999. The 2nd respondent's services were terminated on 30/03/1999 and he made a representation and also issued notice dated 27/05/1999. The writ petition was opposed by the Management taking a specific stand that the 2nd respondent cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court since he being only a Trainee, the definition of 'workman' under the Act is not attracted and hence no relief can be granted. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam after recording the evidence of WW-1, MW-1 and MW-2 and marking Exhibits W-l to W-9 and Exhibit M-l granted the relief in favour of the 2nd respondent on the ground that the Trainee also is an 'apprentice' and hence he falls within the meaning of 'workman' in view of the definition in Section 2(s) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the Management had preferred the aforesaid writ petition. W.P. No. 3532/2002:

(3.) The 2nd respondent filed I.D. No. 199/1999 on the file of the 1st respondent under Section 2-A(2) of the Act to regularise his services by reinstating him with back wages. The 2nd respondent filed I.D. No. 198/1999 under Section 2-A(2) of the Act to regularise his services by reinstating him with back wages. The case of the 2nd respondent in nutshell is that he worked as Casual Labour under a contractor V.V.S. Subba Raju, at the plant of the petitioner/Management at Eethakotta from July, 199 5/08/1997 on monthly wages and later the 2nd respondent was appointed as Trainee Helper by the Management by order dated 30/08/1997 for one year on payment of consolidated amount of Rs. 1,300.00 per month subject to extension of further period and also regularisation as per the decision of the Management subject to the satisfaction of the work. The 2nd respondent worked as Casual Labour for two years and while working as Trainee Helper an opportunity was given by extending his services from 30/08/1998 to 30/03/1999. The 2nd respondent's services were terminated on 30/03/1999 and he made a representation and also issued notice dated 27/05/1999. The writ petition was opposed by the Management taking a specific stand that the 2nd respondent cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court since he being only a Trainee, the definition of 'workman' under the Act is not attracted and hence no relief can be granted. The 1st respondent-Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam after examining WW-1, MW-1 and MW-2 and marking Exhibits W-l to W-12 and M-l granted the relief in favour of the 2nd respondent and the Management aggrieved of the same had filed the present writ petition. W.P. No. 3554/2002: