Decided on March 01,2019

Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court Respondents


Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. - (1.)We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the second respondent, who raised an industrial dispute in 1999 before the competent authority in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, the ID Act).
(2.)The second respondent, as is discernible from the award of the Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, underwent training for one year as apprenticeship in terms of the Apprentices Act, 1961, in the appellants' establishment from 17.03.1993 to 16.03.1994. After that, he was employed from 11.05.1994 to 10.05.1996, 16.06.1996 to 20.09.1996 and 10.02.1997 to 23.02.1999. The Tribunal concluded that those engagements, though were under the guise of training, were nothing but unfair labour practice even though it was provided in the certified Standing Orders of the establishment. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the workman had not alleged unfair labour practice. Yet, the Tribunal was of the firm view that even then the workman was required to be protected against the mighty establishment irrespective of its Standing Orders. It was held by the Tribunal that the applicant before it was a workman in terms of the provisions of the ID Act and he is entitled to be reinstated into service because he was removed from service without any charge or enquiry.
(3.)The establishment challenges the award of the Tribunal in the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge dealt with the material aspects and held certain glaring noticeable features including the factors noted above. It was further noted that the workman was covered under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act and was allotted a provident fund account. It was also noticed that the Tribunal had considered the entire facts, including the plea as to how the workman happened to be brought in as apprentice in the establishment where his father had worked earlier. The plea of the establishment and the plea of the workman on all aspects on material evidence was considered by the Tribunal and the findings rendered by the Tribunal are fundamentally on questions of fact or at best mixed questions of fact and law. Learned single Judge having confirmed the decision of the Tribunal, the award does not require to be revisited by us through this intra-Court appeal.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.