Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Hanumanth Ramanna Bajantri, was appointed as a job trainee conductor by the North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (the Corporation) on 09.12.1996 for a two-year training period. During training, he was terminated without any enquiry or notice. The appellant raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Belgaum, as Reference No.21/2004. The Labour Court, by award dated 15.07.2008, held that the appellant was a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that his termination was illegal as it violated Section 25F of the Act. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The Corporation challenged this award before the High Court in W.P.No.63014/2009. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 10.07.2015, allowed the writ petition and set aside the Labour Court award, holding that the appellant was not a workman but a trainee. The appellant filed this intra-court appeal. The Division Bench considered the issue of whether a trainee is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. The court noted that the appellant was performing the duties of a conductor, which is manual work, and the training was part of his employment. The court relied on the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) and held that the appellant fell within the definition. The court also held that termination without enquiry was illegal. The Division Bench found that the learned Single Judge had erred in reappreciating the evidence and setting aside the Labour Court award, as the findings of the Labour Court were not perverse. The appeal was allowed, the order of the Single Judge was set aside, and the Labour Court award was restored.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Workman - Definition - Trainee Conductor - Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The appellant was appointed as a job trainee conductor and terminated without enquiry. The court held that a trainee is a 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as he was employed to do manual work (conductor duties) and the training was incidental to employment. The Labour Court's finding that the appellant was a workman was upheld. (Paras 6-10) B) Industrial Law - Termination - Illegal Termination - No Enquiry - Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The appellant was terminated without any enquiry or notice. The court held that termination without following the principles of natural justice and without complying with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal and void. The Labour Court correctly ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. (Paras 11-15) C) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope - Reappreciation of Evidence - The learned Single Judge set aside the Labour Court award by reappreciating evidence. The Division Bench held that the writ court cannot act as an appellate court and cannot reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The Labour Court's findings were based on evidence and not perverse, hence the Single Judge erred in interfering. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a trainee conductor is a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and whether termination without enquiry is legal.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.07.2015 in W.P.No.63014/2009 is set aside. The award of the Labour Court, Belgaum in Reference No.21/2004 dated 15.07.2008 is restored. The appellant is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
Law Points
- Trainee is a workman under Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Termination without enquiry is illegal
- Labour Court has jurisdiction to reinstate with back wages
- Writ Court cannot reappreciate evidence unless perverse
