Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nilesh Shivaji Sapkar, was initially appointed by respondent no.4, Volkswagen India Private Limited, for a fixed period of six months from 1 December 2010 to 31 May 2011 on a purely temporary basis. Thereafter, on his application, respondent no.4 offered to impart training under the VWIPL Technician Development Scheme. The training was in two parts: first part for six months and second part for five months, with eligibility for the second part contingent on successful completion of the first. The terms were set out in letters dated 2 July 2011 and 1 December 2011, which clearly stated that the training offer did not confer any right to employment and that if a vacancy existed, the petitioner might be considered for regular employment only after satisfactory completion of the second part. The petitioner completed the first part of training but was not offered the second part. He filed a writ petition challenging the termination of his training as illegal retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court examined whether the petitioner was a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Act. It noted that the training agreement explicitly stated that it was only a training offer and did not create an employer-employee relationship. The petitioner was paid a consolidated stipend, not wages, and his performance was assessed for training purposes. The court held that a trainee does not fall within the definition of 'workman' as there is no master-servant relationship. Consequently, the cessation of training cannot be termed retrenchment under Section 2(oo). The court also held that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable for breach of contract, as the remedy lies in civil court. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Definition of Workman - Section 2(s) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Trainee not a workman - The petitioner was engaged as a trainee under a fixed-term training scheme with no right to employment. The court held that a trainee does not fall within the definition of 'workman' as there is no employer-employee relationship. The termination of training does not constitute retrenchment under the Act. (Paras 2-10) B) Industrial Law - Retrenchment - Section 2(oo) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Termination of training not retrenchment - Since the petitioner was not a workman, the cessation of training cannot be termed retrenchment. The court held that the Industrial Disputes Act does not apply to trainees. (Paras 11-15) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 Constitution of India - Breach of contract not amenable to writ jurisdiction - The petitioner sought to enforce terms of a training contract. The court held that a writ petition is not maintainable for breach of contract, as the remedy lies in civil court. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person undergoing training under a fixed-term training agreement can be considered a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether termination of such training amounts to illegal retrenchment.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Trainee not a workman
- no employer-employee relationship
- training contract does not confer right to employment
- writ petition not maintainable for breach of contract
