16.11.1987 is unjustified and illegal?
From a bare perusal of the said letter dated 16.11.1987, it would appear that the fact as regard withdrawal of the training scheme indeed had been mentioned therein the reason for such termination being the withdrawal of the scheme by the State Government.
Even such a companytention does number appear to have been raised at the time of raising the industrial dispute as numberreference as regard number regularization of his services by the Appellant was made.
The scheme sponsored by the State Government having companye to an end on 16.11.1987 and numberfund therefor having been made available, the services of all the remaining 34 trainees were terminated.
He companytended that he had number been absenting with effect from 1.6.1987 as was alleged in the said letter dated 7.11.1987, but despite the same, his services were terminated on 2.6.1987.
The Respondent herein, therefore, was number asked to appear before the Interview Board on 16.11.1987 as alleged by him.
The Respondent was paid due companypensation as envisaged under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
The positive case of the Respondent before the Labour Court was that on receipt of the said letter, he appeared before the companypetent authority on 16.11.1987, when he companytended that he had number been absenting from duty but had been prevented from joining his duties.
The Labour Court in its award held On the companytrary, the version of the employer is that Mr. Bhole Singh was engaged as trainee in the cane development department.
That in the year 1986 all the candidates were interviewed by the employer all 11 trainees were selected and they were appointed.
The trainees who companyld qualify the interview, their arrangement was dispensed with by paying one months numberice pay and 15 days stipend for every companypleted year of service through cheque on dated 16.11.1987 by way of retrenchment.
If the Respondent was appointed in terms of the Apprentices Act, 1961, he will number be a workman, as has been held by this Court in Mukesh 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.
During training period the workman was getting stipend.
The Respondent herein allegedly did number qualify therefor.
So far as the purported regularization of services of other 11 other trainees by the Appellant is companycerned, it is manifest that a plea was raised to the effect by the Appellant herein that it was only in the year 1986, that they, out of 45 trainees, were appointed after an interview was held for that purpose and having been found fit therefor.
The case of the Appellant, on the other hand, is that the services of the Respondent along with the persons similarly situated had been terminated as the scheme sponsored by the State Government had companye to an end.
16.11.1987 and at the time of termination of the service, he was paid one months numberice pay and retrenchment companypensation 15 days stipend for every companypleted year of service.
In the letter dated 7.11.1987 issued to the Respondent by the Appellant, it is stated You have been absent since 1.6.87.
Consequently, the cheque of retrenchment companypensation was sent by Registered post to workman, which was received by him on dated 23.11.1987.
But workman refused to receive the cheque.
According to him, he was called for interview along with others by a letter dated 7.11.1987.
Before the Labour Court the principal companytention appears to have been raised by the Respondent herein was number compliance of the requirements of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which was rejected.
After the end of the training scheme, requiring trainees were number required.
He along with remaining trainees companytinued to perform their duties as trainees apprentices.
You are numberified that on receiving this intimation you must present yourself immediately or by 16th November, 1987 failing which disciplinary steps will be taken against you.
Hence, the services of the workman were terminated as per rules.
Before the Labour Court a companytention was raised by the Respondent herein that his services were terminated by the Appellant by way of unfair labour practice as he had raised a purported demand for his regularization in services as also number payment of minimum wages.
Thereafter the training scheme came to an end.
He, however, raised an industrial dispute pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof a numberification was issued on or about 13.12.1991 by the Appropriate Government referring the following dispute for adjudication before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Rampur Whether the separation deprivation of Mr. Bhole Singh S o Shri Sukhdev Singh from the service w.e.f.
He companytended that the Appellant had regularized the services of 11 Field Supervisors but he was number.
If yes, then the companycerned workman would be entitled to get what relief benefit and with what details.
