1. The petitioners led by their trade Union have approached this Court under Article-226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 12.12.2002 of the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, whereby the petitioners were informed that Ministry did not consider their case fit for adjudication for the reason that no documentary evidence to support that they were appointed by the petitioner, was produced. The petitioners had claimed, as summarized in Report dated 20th June, 2002, regarding failure of conciliation that twelve workers had approached the Conciliation Officer under the I.D. Act, alleging illegal termination of their services and asserted that they were appointed against regular vacancies or regular posts for regular and permanent work to be carried out day to day i.e. regular activities of Pump Attendance at Vijaynagar Pump. It was further alleged that their services were terminated without following any procedure under the I.D. Act.
2. As against that the respondents herein, had submitted that these 12 persons were imparted training for a period of 12 months at Company Operated Retail Outlet under the COCO Training Scheme of the Respondents, with a view to provide basic field training. They were required to be paid not less than minimum wages and were eligible for benefits of P.F., E.S.I. and Bonus. However, they were not appointed or treated as workmen and there was no employer-employee relationship, and hence, there cannot be any question of termination of services, as alleged by the petitioners.
3. The orders dated 14th August, 2000 and 20th September, 2000, regarding selection of the petitioners for the purpose of training and for
“The completion of the Training Programme does not entitle you in any manner, whatsoever to any job or employment with Company nor does, the Company guarantee to give you any job which you may by reason of your training be capable of handling nor is the Company bound to do so.
If you are agreeable to be engaged as a Trainee on the terms mentioned above, please sign and return the enclosed duplicate copy of this letter as token of your acceptance and report for training on 25.09.2000 at 9:00 a.m. to the Business Manager, CoCo, Vijaynagar.
In case you do not report for joining on above terms and conditions on 25.9.2000 the above offer of appointment as 'Trainee' will stand cancelled and no further consideration will be given in this regard.”
4. Later on, by a letter dated 24.09.2001, one of the petitioners is informed that his training period was of one year with effect from 25.09.2000 and as such his training was concluded on that date. The certificate in respect of his training was stated to be enclosed with the letter. Thus, it is amply clear from the relevant documents that original selection of the petitioner was expressly as trainee for one year and the petitioner had joined the training programme with the clear understanding and express condition that the respondents were not required to offer any job or employment at the end of the period of training.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.2420 of 2000, wherein the High Court(Coram: P.S. Patankar and H.L. Gokhle, J. as his Lordship then was) dealing with the similar set of employees and observed on 22nd December, 2000, as under:
“8. We have already pointed out in details as to how the Training Scheme is devised by the respondents. These 22 are not the employees and they cannot be called as employees merely because the said Outlet works for 24 hours and in three shifts or the type of work is of permanent nature. The averment made in the petition that they were not given any kind of training and that they are merely required to do regular work has not only been denied by the respondents, but the respondents have given details as to how the training is imparted to these candidates and how the Training History Cards are maintained. Exhibit-2 filed to the Reply also points out as to how the training is given to the candidates. This training is given in view of the respect technical developments which have taken place and this is the first such Training Centre opened by the respondents not only for the benefit of its own Outlets but also by other dealers. Those candidates are given the benefit of the said Provident Fund, E.S.I. and Bonus under the Scheme itself. The law governing the same also required that trainees should be given such benefits. Merely because those benefits are given, they cannot be termed as “workman”.”
6. In view of the above indisputable facts and documentary evidence, clearly indicating absence of relationship of Master and Servant between the petitioners and the respondent- Company, the Central Government was fully supported and justified in refusing to refer the dispute which could not be termed as an industrial dispute within the meaning of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
7. Since, the petitioners appears to have made an attempt of dragging the respondents into prolonged litigation, to somehow enter into the service of Respondent No.2-Corporation and invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for initiating a baseless adjudication, the petition is required to be dismissed with costs. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is dismissed and rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
(D. H. WAGHELA, J.) Umesh/