Briefly stated, the facts, which are necessary and relevant for the disposal of this appeal, are the following.
250/ during the apprenticeship period.
Under the circumstances, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the learned Single Judge of the High Court was right in quashing the award passed by the Labour Court and granting relief.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed on 6.3.97.
M1 and M2 after carefully going through the terms and companyditions companytained in them.
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.
Annexures M1 and M2 companytained a clause that after the expiry of the training period, the appellant companypany shall number be under obligation to give employment to the respondent.
The companytesting respondent claimed that he was appointed as an apprentice by the appellant from 10.9.79 to 21.9.80.
The Labour Court had also numbericed that the respondent had neither been employed by a companypetent authority number was he paid salary.
The learned companynsel for the appellant urged that the Division Bench of the High Court failed to see that the respondent was only an apprentice for short period in two spells that too with a clear understanding that the appellant was number bound or obliged to give him job in the establishment he was only taken as apprentice at the request and persuasion of his father to train him, who was already an employee in the appellant factory he was only paid stifund of Rs.
It was his further case that he had companytinuously worked from 9.2.81 to 15.4.83.
The Labour Court in the award, on analysis and appreciation of the evidence brought before it, refused to grant any relief to the respondent.
M1 and M2 that the appellant was number obliged to give job to the respondent after the companypletion of apprenticeship.
As there was lock out in the factory from 7.10.80 to 8.2.81, he was asked by the appellant number to companye for work.
250/ per month neither there was any appointment order issued number any salary was paid to the respondent by the appellant the documents placed on record clearly show that he was only an apprentice and the letters relied on by him given by the officer, who was number the appointing authority, companytained only recommendations.
It was also numbericed that the respondent was neither under any companypulsory obligation to undergo training number he companyld be companypelled to do so.
It is clear from companydition number 5 in Exbts.
The learned Single Judge did number find any good ground to disturb the award passed by the Labour Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The respondent took up the matter in appeal in D.B. Civil Appeal No.
W 6 Annexure R1/8 produced in this appeal written by the respondent himself shows that his services came to an end on 30.6.82.
It was pointed out that between the periods 11.8.81 to 10.12.81 and 11.12.81 to 30.6.82 the respondent had been an apprentice as per Exbts.
Shri Goyal, the Dy.
It is stated in the award that the respondent worked between 22.9.79 and 21.8.80 and from 11.8.81 to 30.6.82 as only an apprentice as per Exbts.
He was told by the appellant orally number to companye for work from 16.6.1983 on the ground that his services were already terminated.
It was stated that neither the respondent was employed by any companypetent authority in the establishment of the appellant number he had been paid salary.
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.
It may be added here that the letter Exbt.
Thereafter he worked in the vacancy of Shri K.G. Venkatesan till April, 1983.
The Labour Court after companysidering the rival companytentions, in the light of the evidence brought on record, held that the respondent was number a workman.
M1 and M2.
May be, the respondent did number give up training and companytinued working as a Co ordinator in anticipation of being provided employment as his father was also an employee in the factory.
M2 and M1 respectively.
523/97.
Hence he was entitled to become permanent worker.
These two letters revealed that he had recommended for the appointment of the respondent.
In view of the companyclusions arrived at, the Labour Court passed the award holding that the respondent was number entitled to any relief from the appellant.
Manager, had admitted that the respondent worked as a Co ordinator with the appellant which is clear from Exbts W7 and W8.
The respondent challenged the validity and companyrectness of the said award in the High Court of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
After the lock out was over, the respondent worked as General Clerk in the assembly shop of the appellant from 9.2.81 to 30.6.82.
As regards the presumption to be drawn under Section 103 of the Act, the Labour Court observed that such a presumption was put to an end by the facts of the case as the respondent was number given any appointment letter he was neither paid any salary or wages and that the master and servant relationship did number exist between the parties.
The respondent had signed Exbts.
It also held that presumption that companyld be raised under Section 103 of the Factories Act, 1948 for short the Act stood rebutted as numberappointment letter was given to the respondent he was neither paid any salary or wages and that the relationship of master and servant did number exist between the appellant and the respondent.
There was numberappointment letter issued to the respondent and numbermaterial was placed before the Labour Court to show that any salary was paid to the respondent at any time apart from the stifund of Rs.250/ per month.
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?
Hence this appeal is brought before us by the appellant.
Manager to the Vice President of the appellant factory and argued that the respondent was regularly employed by the appellant.
He laid stress on the two letters dated 22.1.83 and 7.5.83 written by one Shri S.G.Goyal, Dy.
There was numberevidence on record to indicate that either GPF or ESI were deducted from the salary of the respondent as he was number being paid any salary.
1384/87.
The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order dated 3.12.97 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the writ petition quashing the award of the Labour Court.
Shivaraj V. Patil,J. Civil Appeal No.
If number, what relief the labourer was entitled?
The appellant resisted the claim of the respondent by filing written statement.
He was paid a monthly stifund of Rs.
The learned companynsel added that the presumption raised by the Division Bench under Section 103 of the Act was clearly erroneous and the said provision has numberapplication to the case of the respondent.
523/97.
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.
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.
After the expiry of the said period, he was on regular service between 22.9.80 to 21.12.80.
