- (1.) Civil Appeal No. 4501 of 1998 is directed against the order dated 3-12-1997 made by the High Court of Rajasthan in D. B. Civil Appeal No. 523/97. Briefly stated, the facts, which are necessary and relevant for the disposal of this appeal, are the following. At the instance of the respondent, the State Government referred the dispute under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Notification No. S.P.I. (i) (884) L.C/83, dated 1-2-84 to decide- "Whether the termination of service of labourer Shri Virendra Kumar by the Manager, CIMCO Limited, Bharatpur, was proper and legal If not, what relief the labourer was entitled -
(2.) The contesting respondent claimed that he was appointed as an apprentice by the appellant from 10-9-79 to 21-9-80. After the expiry of the said period, he was on regular service between 22-9-80 to 21-12-80. As there was lockout in the factory from 7-10-80 to 8-2-81, he was asked by the appellant not to come for work. After the lockout was over, the respondent worked as General Clerk in the assembly shop of the appellant from 9-2-81 to 30-6-82. Thereafter he worked in the vacancy of Shri K. G. Venkatesan till April, 1983. He was given Rs. 250/- per month from 22-9-80 to 30-6-82 and when he demanded salary for the period between 1-7-82 to April, 1983 he was told that his case had been recommended for approval of the higher officers. He was told by the appellant orally not to come for work from 16-6-1983 on the ground that his services were already terminated. It was his further case that he had continuously worked from 9-2-81 to 15-4-83. Hence he was entitled to become permanent worker.
(3.) The appellant resisted the claim of the respondent by filing written statement. It was admitted that the respondent had been appointed as an apprentice between 10-9-79 and 22-9-80 at the request of his father who was already serving in the appellant factory. It was pointed out that between the period 11-8-81 to 10-12-81 and 11-12-81 to 30-6-82 the respondent had been an apprentice as per Exbts. M2 and M1 respectively. It was stated that neither the respondent was employed by any competent authority in the establishment of the appellant nor he had been paid salary. It is clear from condition No. 5 in Exbts. M1 and M2 that the appellant was not obliged to give job to the respondent after the completion of apprenticeship. The Labour Court after considering the rival contentions, in the light of the evidence brought on record, held that the respondent was not a workman. It also held that presumption that could be raised under Section 103 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short the 'Act') stood rebutted as no appointment letter was given to the respondent; he was neither paid any salary or wages and that the relationship of master and servant did not exist between the appellant and the respondent. In view of the conclusions arrived at, the Labour Court passed the award holding that the respondent was not entitled to any relief from the appellant.;