Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to a batch of writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench. The petitioners were individuals selected by the North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC) as ‘drivers’ or ‘driver-cum-conductors’ and were directed to undergo training before being formally appointed on probation. The corporation did not issue appointment orders nor pay remuneration during the training period. After completion of training, the corporation declined to appoint several of them or terminated their services, leading to industrial disputes. The petitioners raised claims under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals, which dismissed their claims holding that they were not ‘workmen’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. Consequently, they approached the High Court seeking to quash those orders. The core legal question was whether selected trainees who were yet to be appointed and did not receive wages could be considered workmen entitled to invoke the protection of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court examined the definitions of ‘employer’, ‘industry’, ‘industrial dispute’, and ‘workman’ under the ID Act, as well as relevant provisions of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 and the KSRTC Regulations. The court noted that Section 2(s) of the ID Act defines workman as any person employed in any industry, expressly including apprentices. The court observed that the inclusion of an apprentice signified a broad legislative intent, but the critical element of ‘employment’ was absent in the case of mere trainees who had not been issued appointment orders or paid remuneration. The court held that without a master-servant relationship and actual engagement, the selected candidates did not acquire the status of workmen. Consequently, the Labour Court’s orders were upheld, and the writ petitions were dismissed. The judgment thereby clarified that a person selected and deputed for training by a road transport corporation does not become a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act unless there is a formal appointment and remuneration, even though the Act treats apprentices as workmen once employment commences.
Headnote
A) Labour Law – Definition of Workman – Section 2(s) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – The definition of workman under Section 2(s) includes any person employed in any industry to do manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward; the definition expressly includes an apprentice, indicating that the term ‘workman’ is intended to have a wide connotation, covering all persons employed in an industry irrespective of the nature or duration of their engagement. The section also covers persons dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with an industrial dispute, but excludes persons subject to armed forces legislation, police service, those in managerial/administrative capacity, and supervisory personnel drawing wages exceeding ₹10,000 per month. The Court held that the inclusion of apprentice demonstrates that the Act does not distinguish between regular employees and those undergoing training, as long as there is an employer-employee relationship. However, mere selection and deputation for training does not confer workman status without a formal appointment order or payment of remuneration. (Paras 9–13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person who is selected as a ‘driver’ or as a ‘driver-cum-conductor’ by the respondent – North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (“the Corporation”) and is asked to undergo training before being appointed on probation, is a “workman” as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the ID Act”) and can invoke the provisions of the ID Act for adjudication of his rights?
Final Decision
The High Court answered the determinative question in the negative, holding that selected driver trainees who have not been issued appointment orders and were not paid remuneration are not workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, upholding the Labour Court orders.
Law Points
- definition of workman under Section 2(s) Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- inclusive interpretation of apprentice
- employer-employee relationship
- requirement of appointment order
- training period not constituting employment
- Railway Protection Force Act
- Police Act and exclusion categories
- master-servant relationship essential
