It was also recorded that although the respondent was appointed as Apprentice Trainee Shop Assistant , he companytinued to do the same work.
There was a further direction upon the appellant to pay Rs.750/ per month to the respondent and to pay all the arrears within 12 weeks from the date of the order.
In view of its aforesaid findings, the Labour Court ordered that the respondent be reinstated in service with companytinuity, together with back wages and all other companycessions accruing to him.
The respondent was directed to report for training before 3rd May, 1990 and the training period companysequently came to an end on 2nd May, 1992.
On 28th March, 2005, the Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal upon holding that although the respondent was designated as an apprentice, in fact, he was number an apprentice but an employee doing full time work in the establishment.
On 16th September, 2004, the Writ Appeal was disposed of with the following directions The appellant NSIC shall pay to second respondent Shri V. Lakshmi Narayanan directly by way of cheque a sum of Rs.15,000/ which represents the interest on Rs.63,000/ from the date of the impugned order till date, within a period of 4 weeks from today and in future, the appellant shall pay to the second respondent interest 4 p.a.
A direction was given that such payment was to be made under Section 12B of the said Act from October, 1998 till the disposal of the Writ Appeal.
It is his case that on 8th July, 1991, he was transferred to the Government Purchase Section of the Regional Office where he was made to perform dispatch work.
The appellant herein had chosen to remain silent despite the several letters written on behalf of the respondent and ultimately an application was filed before the Labour Officer on 30th March, 1993.
The further case of the respondent was that while juniors were allowed to companytinue in service, he was number reinstated and his removal from service without any reason violates the provisions of Section 25 F of 1947 Act.
A few facts are required to be set out to appreciate the award passed by the Labour Court.
It was also recorded that the respondent herein was performing dispatch work, remitting money by going to the regional office, cleaning articles and delivering goods sold to customers and in this background he was offered the post of Apprentice Trainee Shop Assistant for which he was selected on 26th April, 1990 and was paid a sum of Rs.600/ per month during the 1st year of training, which amount was increased to Rs.750/ per month during the 2nd year of training.
The other appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court dated 20th September, 2004 dismissing the appellants Writ Application.
Only thereafter numberices were issued by the respondent through his advocate indicating that he had been removed from service without any reason or without holding any inquiry in violation of Section 25F of the 1947 Act.
The appellant thereupon filed another Writ Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition and the subsequent order dismissing the restoration petition, being Writ Appeal No.539/2005.
Basing its judgment on the aforesaid material, the Labour Court accepted the case made out by the respondent and held that the case made out on behalf of the appellant that after the period of apprenticeship, the respondents companynection with the appellant had ended, was number acceptable.
It was asserted by the respondent that during the 1st year he was paid a salary of Rs.600/ per month and during the 2nd year he was paid Rs.750/ per month as salary and after the training period was over, the appellant herein had agreed to appoint him as a Peon.
The writ petition itself came up for hearing on 20th September, 2004 before the learned Single Judge who dismissed the same and companyfirmed the award of the Labour Court dated 20th March, 1997.
The present appeal is directed against the said judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 28th March, 2005.
According to him he had companytinued to work in the Marketing Development Centre of the appellant at Nungambakkam on daily wages at Rs.
It was also companytended on behalf of the appellant that since the two years training period of the respondent as a trainee had companye to an end, he was number entitled to any relief as prayed for.
On 25th April, 2002, the Division Bench stayed the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4th September, 1998 and modified the interim order in so far as it related to payment of wages under Section 17B of the 1947 Act.
On 29th April, 1992, the respondent requested the appellant to companyfirm him in service and by subsequent letters dated 12th August, 1992 and 7th December, 1992, the respondent requested the appellant to make him permanent.
However, since the companyciliation failed, the respondent was companypelled to pray for reinstatement with companytinuity of service and other companycessions.
On the said petition, the learned Single Judge stayed the award and such stay was companyfirmed on 4th September, 1998 by the learned Single Judge with a direction upon the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.63,000/ before the Labour Court within 12 weeks and further directed that the said sum be invested in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank and the interest of the same be released to the respondent once in six months.
Since the same set of facts will be relevant for a decision in both the appeals, they have been taken up together for disposal and are being disposed of by this judgment.
On 23rd June, 1997, the appellant challenged the award passed by the Labour Court by way of a Writ Petition before the Madras High Court, being No.9462/1997.
In order to decide the dispute the Labour Court framed the following issues Whether it is companyrect to say that the petitioner was employed only as a trainee in the respondent Management, as companytended by the respondent?
Whether the removal of the petitioner from service is justifiable?
The said order of the learned Single Judge dated 4th September, 1998 was challenged by the appellant in appeal being Writ Appeal No.1364/1998.
Suddenly, on 1st May, 1992, without any reason or inquiry, he was removed from service and that since he had served companytinuously for more than 240 days, his removal from service should be treated as retrenchment since the appellant herein had number followed the procedure indicated in Section 25 F of the 1947 Act.
It was also recorded that while perusing Ex.
The Labour Court also came to the companyclusion that even after joining as apprentice and shop assistant on 3rd May, 1990, the respondent had served in the show room and performed the same work which he had performed previously and had been performing a full time job and hence his dismissal from service was number at all justified.
The arrear of wages under Section 17B up to April 2002 was also required to be paid on or before 15th May, 2002 and future monthly wages on or before the 10th of every succeeding month, failing which the stay would stand automatically vacated.
The case made out by the respondent was companypletely denied by the appellant herein and it was stated in its companynter that the respondent had applied to the appellant for appointment to the post of Staff Assistant Apprentice Trainee and that in the interview dated 13th April, 1990 he was selected and orders were passid in this regard on 26th April, 1990 wherein it was specifically mentioned that the training period would be for two years only.
W 7, it was numbericed that the appellant had agreed to engage the respondent as a Peon in D Category or as a shop assistant.
Arising out of SLP C No.14520/2005 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
It was also his case that while working with the appellant he had been called for a direct interview on 13th April, 1990 for the post of Apprenticeship Trainee Shop Assistant and that he was selected as per the Order dated 26th April, 1990.
15/ per day companytinuously till 2nd May, 1990.
A restoration petition was also dismissed on 3rd January, 2005.
It was also seen from letters exchanged between the parties that the respondent who had been serving as a casual labourer had been recommended for appointment to a permanent post by the General Manager.
4783/2006 Arising out of SLP No/06 CC 7812/06 ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Leave granted.
on Rs.63,000/ every quarter till the disposal of the Writ Petition No.9462 of 1997.
If number, what is the relief for which the petitioner is entitled.?
The case made out by the respondent before the Labour Court under Section 2 a of the 1947 Act was that he had joined the appellant herein as a casual labourer on daily wages on 6th April, 1987.
After examining the evidence which had been adduced on behalf of the parties, the Labour Court recorded that the respondent herein had joined as a casual labourer on 6th April, 1987 in the Marketing Development Centre under the management of the appellant in the Eldorado Building at a daily wage of Rs.12/ which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.15/ .
The said question also gives rise to the issue as to whether the Labour Court was right in holding that the termination of the respondents apprenticeship was in violation of Section 25 F of the 1947 Act and companysequently whether he was entitled to reinstatement with companytinuity in service and all back wages and other companycessions accruing to him.
