WIPRO INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -employer's grievance is that persons engaged as trainees under a Training Scheme, as set out in the Standing Orders, Annexure -A and those engaged as apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961 having staked a claim to fall within the definition of the term 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'ID Act', initiated conciliation proceeding through the 2nd respondent -Union, which espoused their cause leading to the State Govt. making a reference of the Industrial dispute by order dated 23.7.2013 Annexure -L and a corrigendum dt. 25.4.2014 Annexure -M despite being informed that the said persons do not fall within the definition of the term 'workman' and there is no jural relationship of employer and employee. Hence this petition.

(2.) IT is useful to extract the points of reference at Annexure -L which reads thus:

(3.) THIS submission of the learned counsel is stoutly opposed by Sri. Anantharam, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent -Trade Union, inter alia contending that the question as to whether persons engaged as trainees either under the Training Scheme or Apprentices Act are workmen calls for an answer only after a trial, whence it is possible to establish that the petitioner -employer extracted normal work as that of employees in the manufacturing process for the business of the petitioner, and that there was no training imparted as such. According to the learned counsel, the State Govt. having regard to Section 10 of ID Act' is not invested with a jurisdiction to decide the lis as to whether the said persons are employees/workmen or that the petitioner was not an employer.