Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, filed two writ petitions challenging orders of the Principal Labour Court, Hubli, which had set aside the termination of training of two trainee drivers, Ganesh Nagappa Madiwal and Basapa K Badiger. The respondent in WP No.65521/2009 was appointed as a trainee driver on 11.11.2000 with nine terms and conditions, including that he would not acquire any right of an employee and his training could be terminated for violation of terms. He remained absent from 04.02.2001, leading to a show cause notice and an enquiry on 19.11.2001, after which his name was removed from the selection list. The respondent in WP No.65534/2009 was similarly appointed as a trainee driver and his training was terminated. Both respondents raised industrial disputes, which were referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the trainees were 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that their termination without a proper enquiry and without compliance with Section 25-F of the Act was illegal. The Labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The Corporation challenged these awards in the High Court. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petitions, holding that the Labour Court had correctly applied the law. The court noted that the trainees were engaged in the process of training to drive buses, which is a skilled job, and thus they fell within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court further held that the termination of their training without a proper domestic enquiry and without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act was illegal. The court upheld the Labour Court's awards and dismissed the writ petitions.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Trainee as Workman - Definition of Workman - Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The court held that a trainee driver, who is engaged in the process of training to drive buses, is a 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as he is employed in a skilled or unskilled capacity and the training is part of employment. (Paras 3-5) B) Industrial Law - Termination of Training - Illegal Termination - Sections 10(4-A) and 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The court held that the termination of a trainee's training without a proper domestic enquiry and without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is illegal and unjustified. The Labour Court's award reinstating the trainee with continuity of service and back wages was upheld. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a trainee driver is a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the termination of his training without a proper enquiry is legal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the Labour Court's awards. The court held that the trainees were workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that their termination without a proper enquiry and without compliance with Section 25-F was illegal. The Labour Court's direction for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages was upheld.
Law Points
- Trainee is a workman
- Termination without enquiry is illegal
- Section 10(4-A) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act
