Ram Gopal Dwivedi and Raj Govind Singh vs M/s. Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Through its General Manager

Ram Gopal Dwivedi ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

M/s Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Through its General Manager .…Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL No.8126 OF 2009

Raj Govind Singh ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

M/s Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Through its General Manager .…Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Signature Not Verified

1) Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2017.08.19 Both these appeals are filed against the final 12:51:51 IST Reason:

common judgment and order dated 02.07.2007 passed

1 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P.

Nos. 10377 and 10389 of 1998 whereby the High Court

allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondent herein

and set aside the awards dated 29.08.1996 and

28.02.1997 given by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court

(III) Kanpur in Adjudication Case Nos. 136 of 1994 and

129 of 1994 by which the Labour Court held that the

termination of the appellants illegal and directed their

reinstatement and payment of 50% back wages.

2) We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate

the issue involved in these appeals.

3) The respondent is a unit of the U.P. State Electricity

Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”). It is known

as Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (for short

KESC). The terms and conditions of the employees

working with the respondent are governed by the

statutory regulations framed by the Board in exercise of

its powers under Section 78 (c) of the Electricity (Supply)

Act, 1948.

2

4) The appellants were engaged by the respondent to

work in their set up as trade Apprentices under the

Apprentices Act, 1961. In terms of the agreement, they

were to undergo training in the trade of Boiler

Attendant/Cable Jointer. Their period of training was 3

years. It was to come to an end after the expiry of

contract period.

5) The respondent accordingly terminated the services

of the appellant in C.A. No. 8125 of 2009 on 01.08.1989

and the appellant in C.A. No. 8126 of 2009 on

13.07.1990. This gave rise to the dispute between the

appellants and the respondent, which led to making of

the industrial reference to the Labour Court, Kanpur to

decide as to whether the termination of the appellants

from the services was legal or/and proper and, if so, what

relief the appellants are entitled to?

6) Parties filed their statements and adduced evidence

before the Labour Court. By awards dated 29.08.1996

and 28.02.1997, the Labour Court answered the

3 reference in appellants’ favour. It was held that, (i) the

appellants were not paid any retrenchment compensation

before terminating their services; (ii) no inquiry was held;

(iii) the appellant having served with the respondent for

more than two years, they were entitled to the protection

of labour laws. The Labour Court, therefore, set aside the

termination order and directed reinstatement of the

appellants together with payment of 50% of back wages.

7) The respondent (employer), felt aggrieved of the

awards, filed writ petitions before the High Court at

Allahabad and questioned its legality and correctness. By

impugned judgments, the High Court allowed the writ

petitions and set aside the awards of the Labour Court.

The High Court held that the case at hand are fully

covered by the decision of this Court in U.P. State

Electricity Board vs. Shiv Mohan Singh & Anr., (2004)

8 SCC 402 against the appellants and hence the Labour

Court erred in answering the reference in appellants’

favour by setting aside the termination order and

4 directing the appellants’ reinstatement in service with

50% payment of back wages. It was held that the

reference should have been answered in respondent’s

favour by upholding the appellants’ termination as legal

and proper.

8) The appellants, felt aggrieved by the impugned

judgments, have filed these appeals by special leave

before this Court.

9) Heard Mr. Satya Mitra Garg, learned counsel for the

appellants and Dr, Rajeev Sharma, leaned counsel for the

respondent.

10) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit

in these appeals.

11) In our considered opinion, the High Court was fully

justified in placing reliance on the decision rendered by

this Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board

(supra) for allowing the respondent's writ petitions and

setting aside of the awards of the Labour Court. Indeed,

5 the facts of this case and of U.P. State Electricity

Board’s case (supra) are almost identical.

12) In fact, we find that in both the cases, the

employees were working as Boiler Attendant/Cable

Jointer in UPSEB and were appointed as Apprentices.

13) This Court (Three Judge Bench) in the case of U.P.

State Electricity Board (supra) examined the provisions

of Apprentices Act, 1961 in the context of U.P. Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 and then applying the law laid down

in the case set aside the award of the Labour Court and

upheld the termination.

14) This would be clear from the facts set out from the

case of U.P. State Electricity Board (supra) in para 63

which reads as under:

“63. Respondent 1 Shiv Mohan Singh was appointed as an apprentice Boiler Attendant under the Apprentices Act, 1961 from 11-4-1985 to 10-4-1988 and underwent training of the U.P. State Electricity Board. His contract was drawn up but not registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser. He completed his three years’ training and a certificate to this effect was issued to him and he was directed to appear before the National Council and on passing thereof he was to be awarded a certificate of proficiency as a Boiler Attendant.

6 From this fact it is apparent that he was appointed as an apprentice trainee in the designated trade of Boiler Attendant. After completion of his training his services were terminated on 10-4-1988. It is clear from this fact that he was a Boiler Attendant. He completed three years’ training and after end of the training he was relieved as per the terms and conditions of the appointment as an apprentice in designated trade of Boiler Attendant and therefore he cannot be declared to be a worker under the Act and he cannot claim the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In this light the award given by the Labour Court in Award Dispute No. 166 of 1991 dated 12-8-1993 and the order dated 26-9-2002 passed in WP No. 21560 of 1995 by the High Court cannot be sustained. Civil appeal is allowed. Both the orders of the High Court dated 26-9-2002 and the award of the Labour Court dated 12-8-1993 are set aside.”

15) As mentioned supra, the facts of both the cases

appear identical. In this view of the matter, the High

Court, in our view, was justified in placing reliance on

the decision of this Court in U.P. State Electricity

Board (supra) and rightly allowed the respondent's

(employer’s) writ petitions and set aside the awards of the

Labour Court. It is rather unfortunate that the Labour

Court did not take note of the law laid down in U.P.

State Electricity Board’s case and wrongly set aside the

termination orders. We, therefore, concur with the

7 reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High

Court and uphold the impugned judgment.

16) In view of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in

the appeals, which thus fail and are accordingly

dismissed.

………...................................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL]

…...……..................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi;

July 25, 2017

8