Court No. - 56
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23275 of 1996 Petitioner :- M/S Dhampur Sugar Mills. Ltd., Bijnor Respondent :- Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.B. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.K. Narain,Dhruva Narain,Mahipal Singh
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the award dated 30th September, 1995 given in Adjudication Case No. 02/92 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rampur, respondent no.1 by which the action of the petitioner retrenching Sri Roop Kishore, respondent no.3 was held to be illegal and further direction was given to reinstate him with back wages.
Petitioner been a Public Limited Company registered under the Indian Companies Act,1956 and engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar through vacuum pan process. Petitioners' factory situate at Dhampur, district Bijnor.
In the year 1985-86 the State Government has floated a Scheme known as Ganna Kisan Scheme. The Scheme purports to giving training to the agriculturists to produce new variety of sugar cane. Further the Scheme provides that aid will be provided by the State Government.
The petitioner has appointed 54 apprentice/trainees and also gave stipend to them as purported in the terms of the Scheme sponsored by the State Government for training the cane growers.
It is further stated that the Government did not provide aid, hence the scheme came to an end on 26.11.1987. The petitioner called for interview for selection of suitable persons against permanent post available in its company. The interviews were held and 15 persons who were found suitable, were selected and given appointment. It was further stated that respondent no.3 even did not appear for the interview.
The petitioner as per provision of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has given one month notice in writing indicating reason therein for retrenchment and also paid 15 days wages to the aforementioned trainees.
Respondent no.3 was paid due compensation through cheque sent to him through speed post, the same has not been denied by him.
The respondent no.3 was retrenched w.e.f. 16.11.1987. Feeling aggrieved, he has raised a dispute before the labour court. After hearing the parties as well as recording statements the labour court came to the conclusion that respondent no.3 has illegally been retrenched w.e.f. 16.11.1987 and further directed for his reinstatement with back wages.
The impugned awarded dated 30.9.1995 was pasted on the notice board on 13.6.1996 and the petitioner received the same on 24.6.1996. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Heard Sri S.S.Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mahipal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
It was vehemently argued by Sri Nigam that the Scheme floated by the State Government for training of agriculturists for growing new variety of sugar cane for which purpose 54 persons were appointed as Apprentice trainees has come to an end. After the closure of the said Scheme the petitioner – company has called all 54 persons for interview and out of which 15 persons were selected. All 15 persons were absorbed against the regular posts in the petitioner-company. Respondent no.3 even did not respond / appear for interview. The respondent no.3 has no right to be absorbed in the services and the impugned award has been passed illegally and arbitrarily directing reinstatement of respondent no.3 with back wages.
Sri Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment in Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Bhola Singh reported in [(2005) 2 SCC 470] wherein in identical set of case Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:
“ 9.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant would submit that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration the finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court that the interview in question had been held in the year 1986 when 45 trainees were interviewed and out of them only eleven were taken in service and services of no other trainee had been regularized after the scheme came to an end.
14. If the Respondent was appointed in terms of the Apprentice Act, 1961, he will not be a workman, as has been held by this Court in Mukesh K. Tripathi vs. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC and Others [(2004) 8 SCC 387] and U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Shiv Mohan Singh and Another [(2004) 8 SCC 402].
15. In terms of the provisions of the Apprentice Act , 1961, a trainee or an apprentice has no right to be absorbed in services. It is trite that if the provisions of the Apprentice Act applies, the provisions of the Labour Laws would have no application.
16. The Respondent advisedly raised the question of applicability of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act having regard to the provisions of the Apprentice Act but even assuming that he was a workman within the meaning of the provisions thereof, the Labour Court had unhesitatingly came to the conclusion that the statutory requirements for effecting a valid retrenchment in terms thereof had been complied with. A finding of fact has also been arrived at by the Labour Court that the scheme sponsored by the State Government had come to an end.
18.When a workman is appointed in terms of a scheme on daily wages, he does not derive any legal right to be regularized in his service. It is now well known that completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year may not by itself be a ground for directing regularization particularly in a case when the workman had not been appointed in accordance with the extant rules.
21. It is now well-settled that even in a case where the services of a workman have been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 6N of the Industrial Disputes Act, a direction for reinstatement shall not ordinarily be issued, in the event, the termination of services becomes co-terminus with the scheme. “ It is further submitted that in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case the labour court has committed a gross error in passing the impugned award holding retrenchment of respondent no.3 to be illegal and further directing for reinstatement with back wages.
It is not in dispute that the Scheme sponsored by the State Government having come to an end on 16.11.1987 and no fund therefor having been made available. The services of all the remaining 39 trainees were terminated.
The petitioner in terms of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has given notice of one month and also given cheque of 15 days wages as retrenchment compensation which was sent through speed post to respondent no.3 and the same has not been denied.
The only technical objection raised was that the amount of compensation was less.
The respondent no.3 was appointed in terms of the Scheme on daily wages, he does not derive any legal right to be regularised in his service.
Where the services of a workman have been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, a direction for reinstatement shall not be ordinarily be issued, in the event, the termination of services becomes coterminous with the Scheme.
In view of the reasons aforementioned I am of the opinion that the impugned award dated 30.9.1995 of the labour court is liable to be set aside and the respondent no.3 is not entitled for any relief.
The award dated 30th September, 1995 given by the labour court is set aside. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018 samz