TIKA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tikka Ram and seven others through present petition filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash orders, Annexures P-10 to P-17 vide which they were relieved from their service with immediate effect on successful completion of their training.

(2.) Brief facts of the case reveal that the petitioners were appointed as Waiter Trainee and Kitchen Helper Trainee from December 29, 1993 to January 18, 1994 vide orders, Annexures P-1 to P-8 respectively. It is their case that they had successfully completed their training period and thereafter continued as full time employees but were paid only stipend of trainee. Their services were abruptly terminated vide orders, Annexures P-10 to P-17 on the pretext that they had completed their training period, although a right to regular appointment had accrued to them prior to their termination in accordance with the Standing Orders.

(3.) Mrs. Abha Rathor, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that as per the appointment letters of the petitioners, they were to remain on training for a period of two years and if the training was not successfully completed, it could be extended for six months more. Petitioners completed their two years training from December 29, 1995 to January 28, 1996 and the same was never extended. The respondents, however, continued using the services of the petitioners as full time employees by paying them the same stipend as was paid to them in training. The Standing Orders of the Haryana Tourism Corporation provide that Apprentices Act, 1961 would apply to the trainees and Section 3(d) of the said Act defines 'apprentice' to mean a learner who may be given a stipend during the course of his training and the employer will provide different categories of workman subject to the provisions of the said Act. Section 7 of the said Act provides that the contract of apprentices training would terminate on expiry of period of apprentices training provided in the appointment order. In view of this, petitioners having completed training period on August 16, 1995 had continued only as a temporary workers with the Haryana Tourism Corporation. The respondents now after four years in November 1997 could not terminate the services of the petitioners on the pretext of completing training and, therefore, the orders deserve to be quashed. It is then canvassed before us that to continue the workers for long as casual or temporary or as trainee is unfair labour practice.