Uttaranchal High Court: Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. contemplated the writ petition where the petitioner raised questions related to the order of the Labor Court passed in 2014.
The brief facts as involved in the instant writ petition were that the petitioner in the capacity of being an employer as a registered company under the Companies Act, had got different units and plants situated at various places, which required the services of certain workman in order to discharge the industrial work, which the unit had to undertake and in order to get the work performed in an efficient manner they required the services of Tool Room Trainee. Hence, the respondent was engaged as a Trainee with the said company and appointment made of the respondent for Trainee was governed by the terms and conditions of letter of appointment as it was provided in the letter of appointment itself issued. A certain stipend was fixed for the respondent. Subsequently the services of the respondent were put to an end on the grounds that the work and services were not satisfactory. The issue that arose afterwards was resolved between the parties.
Hence, the respondent filed an industrial dispute against the petitioner; consequently a proceeding was drawn before the Conciliation Officer and on the culmination of the said proceedings before the Conciliation Officer under Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, reference was sought to be made with regards to an adjudication of the controversy as raised by the workman. Consequently, a reference was made to the effect that as to whether and the act of the employer of dispensing the services of the petitioner as a tool room trainee was just and valid and to what benefit the trainee would be entitled to receive.
Labour Court ultimately by the impugned award had held that the act of the employer of dispensing the services of the respondent by an order was illegal and the workman was directed to be reinstated into the services.
Counsel for the petitioner Sudhir Kumar, submitted that in the said letter of appointment a clause was mentioned where the employer had reserved the rights to terminate the services of the trainee as any desired time without assigning any reason and even with put any prior intimation. He argued that while holding the termination as to be illegal the Labor Court had not treated that it was a reference which was made for defining the status of the workmen, as that of the respondent being of a regular employee.
Labor Court to the particular issue related to the status of the workman held that, it cannot in any manner be interpreted as if the petitioner was providing a regular status to the respondent as the effect of the award would be that as soon as the order was dispensed, the service of respondent was held to be bad in the eyes of the law, it will only give the respondent the same status of that being of a Tool Room Trainee from where he was removed, the post which he had acquired prior to his removal and thus he would be acquiring back the status of that of a Tool Room Trainee only, and the said award cannot be read as if it was giving him the status as that of a regular employee.
The Court observed that the clause of the terms of appointment would not come into play at the stage where the respondent was given a reason for his termination. More particularly, when had it been a simplicitor dispensation of service without attaching any stigma, then the employer could had exercised its power to dispense the services, but as soon as the employer attached a stigma and made any observation affecting the credibility with regards to the manner in which the work was performed by the trainee, it amounted to be a stigmatic order and in that eventuality, the adherence to the principles contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act or under the principles of natural justice was required to adhere to prior to terminating the services of the workmen.
Hence, it may not be treated to have an effect of providing the status of a regular employee to that of the respondent was absolutely a misconception which was drawn, because logically even otherwise also, if the order of termination was set aside, it goes without saying that the effect of setting aside of the termination order would only be revival of the status of the workmen, which was existing or he was enjoying in relation to the trainee which was prevailing at the time when the services were dispensed.[L.G. Balakrishnan & Bros Ltd. v. Virendra Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 646, decided on 02-07-2019]