[383]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

384

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 384

Award of the Labour Court .. 384

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

392

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 392

Government Notifications

.. 392

Œ©√∂§s©AÔ^d

395

Avis d’ appel d’ offres

.. 395

Tender notices

.. 395

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

398

Annonces

.. 398

Announcements

398

Amﬂºƒˆ \VWÈ ∂´E>µ

La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry

The Gazette of Puducherry

∂]ÔV´D ÿ√u≈ ÿkπX|

Publiée par Autorité

Published by Authority

Registered with the Registrar

of Newspapers for India

under No. 10410

Registered No. PY/44/2021-23

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2023 }

º\ |

9 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Mai

2023 (19 Vaisakha 1945)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

9th

May

2023

384

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[9 May 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 21/AIL/Lab./T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 17th February 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 31/2018, dated

07-01-2023 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry in respect of Dispute between the

M/s. MRF Limited, Nettapakkam Commune, Puducherry

and Thiru V. Vignesh, Villupuram District over non-

employment has been received;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with

the notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O. Ms.

No. 20/9/Lab./L, dated 23-05-1991, it is hereby directed

by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said

Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

P. RAGINI,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present :Tmt. V. Sofana Devi, M.L.

Presiding Officer.

Saturday, the 07th day of January, 2023.

I.D. (L) No. 31/2018

C.N.R. No. PYPY06-000061-2018

Vignesh S/o. Veerappan,

Palliputhupattu,

Mandagapattu Post,

Villupuram District,

Tamil Nadu.

. . Petitioner

Vs.

The Managing Director,

M/s. MRF Limited,

No. 1, Eripakkam Village,

Nettapakkam Commune,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 19-12-2023 before

m e f o r f i n a l h e a r i n g i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f

Thiru T. Veeraselvam, Counsel for the Petitioner,

Thiruvalaragal L. Swaminathan and I. Ilankumar,

Counsel for the Respondent, and after hearing the both

sides and perusing the case records, this Court delivered

the following:

A W A R D

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt.

No.107/AIL/LAB/T/2018 dated 21-06-2018 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry to resolve the following dispute

between the Petitioner and the Respondent, viz.,

(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Petitioner

Thiru. V. Vignesh, Villupuram District against the

Management of M/s. MRF Limited, Nettapakkam

Commune, Puducherry over non-employment is

justified or not? If justified, what relief the Petitioner

is entitled to?

(b) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms

of money, if, it can be so computed?

2. Brief facts of the case of the Petitioner averred in

the claim petition:

The Petitioner had worked at M/s. MRF Limited

Puducherry in apprenticeship training from 01-06-2008

onwards and on 02-08-2010 a criminal case under

section 381 of IPC was registered by the Station

House Officer, Nettapakkam Police Station,

Puducherry, alleging that the Petitioner had stolen the

Laptop from the Respondent Company and that he

was trying to sell the same at Thirubuvanai Bus Stop,

Pondicherry and he was remanded to Judicial custody.

The Petitioner has approached the Respondent

Management to join duty, but, the Respondent

Management refused to give employment to the

Petitioner stating that criminal case is pending against

him and due to long absenteeism, the Respondent

Management terminated the Petitioner from service on

20-08-2010. The said absence of the duty by the

Petitioner was due to the complaint made by the

Respondent Management. The Respondent Management

lodged the complaint on 02-08-2010 and he was

arrested by the Police and remanded to Judicial

custody till 20-08-2010 and the Petitioner was not

failed to attend the duty on his own. After trial the

Judicial Magistrate Court has decided that the

Petitioner had not stolen the Laptop of the

Respondent Management and as such, on 20-10-2016

the Petitioner was discharged/acquitted from the

criminal case vide Judgment passed in CC 380/2010

by the Judicial Magistrate-I Court, Puducherry. The

Petitioner sent a Registered post to the Respondent

Management for reinstatement of him, but, the

Respondent Management did not respond the

Petitioner’s plea. Therefore, the Petitioner had

385

9 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

approached the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Pondicherry for non-employment of the Petitioner and

they conducted an enquiry between parties and on

16-05-2018, it was decided by the Labour Department

that as there was no possibility to make an amicable

settlement between the Petitioner and the Respondent

Management, the matter was ended in failure in the

last proceedings held on 19-01-2018 and referred the

matter for adjudication.

(ii) The Petitioner had completed Higher

Secondary Course (12th Standard). The Petitioner

does not require any kind of money/compensation

which may be given by the Respondent Management,

but, he needs reinstatement in the Respondent

Management company. Because, the Petitioner was

not able to join in any other company with the bad

name that he had stolen the computer from the

Respondent Management though he was acquitted

from the alleged charges. In order to maintain his

family, he is having wife and children and his aged

parents, he wants employment in the Respondent

Management and if, the case of this Petitioner is not

considered by the Respondent Management, then the

Petitioner will be stranded into streets. The Petitioner

is having every right to get reemployment in the

Respondent Management as he has not committed

any theft and it was decided by the Court that he is

not guilty of the offences. The Petitioner undertakes

that he would attend the duty sincerely and he would

abide by the employment conditions of the

Respondent Management at all times in the event of

giving employment to the Petitioner by the

Respondent Management. Hence, the Petitioner prays

to direct the Respondent Management to reinstate

the Petitioner in the Respondent Management in the

similar post/job or any other suitable job and other

attendant charges, perks and allowances. Hence, the

petition.

3. The brief averments of the counter filed by the

respondents are as follows:

The claim Petitioner Vignesh was issued with

an order of apprenticeship dated 01-06-2008 at

MRF Limited, Eripakkam, Nettapakkam Commune,

Puducherry, as an Apprentice Trainee under the

Apprenticeship Scheme of the Respondent

Management. As per the terms of the order of

Apprenticeship issued to the claim Petitioner

herein, the Apprenticeship Training will be for a

period of 42 months in 4 spells and the claim

Petitioner was initially engaged for a period of

6 months with effect from 01-06-2008. During the

period of each spell, the Respondent Management

will assess the performance of the Apprentice

Trainee as envisaged in the Training Scheme and

based on the assessment he will be moved to the

next spell of training.

(ii) The clause 3 of the Certified Standing

Order of the M/s. MRF Limited, Puducherry,

speaks about the classification of workman and

clause 3.6 deals with Apprenticeship under

Company Training Scheme and accordingly:

“Company Training Scheme/Trainee means a

Learner who is paid stipend and whose terms and

conditions are governed by the provisions of the

Apprentices Act, 1961 and the amendments

thereof or one who is recruited to undergo

Apprenticeship as per Company’s Scheme either

as Production Apprentice or Engineering

Apprentice or Apprentice for Service Department.

The Apprenticeship period will be for 42 months

comprising 4 spells, the first spell is for 6 months

and the remaining 3 spells each are for one year

duration and the Company is not obliged to

employ after the Conclusion of their Apprenticeship.

At the expiry of any spell each Trainee will be

assessed and evaluated and on satisfactory

completion of the Training in each spell, the Trainee

will be put on to Training for next spell. On completion

of the total Apprenticeship period the Services will

and automatically terminated. However, they may be

considered for the post of Probationer on satisfactory

completion of Training by the Company at its

discretion depending upon the exigencies and vacancy

position. The Status as an Apprentice will not change

until it is changed by the company in writing.....”

(iii) Being the Certified Standing Order of the

Respondent Management, the said clause 3.6 is

applicable to the claim Petitioner Vignesh and this

clause is in vogue for all the factories of the

Respondent Management located in Goa, Medak,

Kottayam and Puducherry.

(iv) The Termination of the Trainee (Apprentice)

either by efflux of time or the Trainee not reporting

for training or the Trainee indulging in, in-disciplinary

activities during the training period, the aggrieved

trainee cannot claim continuation of training or

reinstatement as a matter of right as the apprentice

cannot re-designate himself as a workman on par with

the regular workmen. The individual Apprenticeship

Order dated 01-06-2008 issued to the claim Petitioner

as mentioned supra would speak for itself on the terms

and conditions of Apprenticeship Training in the

Respondent Management and hence, the relief sought

by the claim Petitioner lacks merit, substance and

deserves no consideration even remotely.

386

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[9 May 2023

(v) Therefore, in all probabilities, the reference to

adjudicate on the claim of the claim Petitioner who is

an Apprentice Trainee is bad under Law and cannot

be entertained by this Court and the present Industrial

Dispute deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

(vi) The Apprenticeship Act did not make provision

for NAC Apprenticeship for any trade connected with

Tyre industry, the Respondent Management was

obliged to evolve its own Training Scheme. As the

workmen have to be imparted knowledge about

various types of materials, parts, machines, processes,

etc., it was felt that the Training should be “on the

job training” for a period lasting 42 months, of which

after initial orientation, the first level of training will

be for six months to be followed by three different

spells of training each lasting one year. There are no

ITI Courses regarding manufacturing of Tyres and

only the Respondent Management had to impart

Training. The Respondent’s Management being in

Union territory of Puducherry, the Model Standing

Orders framed by the Central Government were

applicable. Clause 2 (g) of the Model Standing Orders

framed by the Central Government defines an

Apprentice to mean “a learner who is paid allowance

during the period of his training” and no period has

been stipulated for the period of Apprenticeship.

(vii) In the year 2001, the Respondent Management

submitted Draft Standing Orders for certification.

Taking note of the system of training prevailing in the

Respondent’s establishment and also in the absence

of mention of any trade connected with the Tyre

Industry dealt with under the Apprenticeship Act,

provision was made to define Apprentices as

“Apprentices under the Apprenticeship Act 1961,

under Company Trading Scheme/Trainee” (Clause 3.6).

Based on the Joint Memorandum between the Unions

and the Respondent Management on 10-07-2003, the

Standing Orders were certified. After certification of

the Standing Orders on 10-07-2003, the Respondent

Management has been engaging trainees in terms of

the Certified Standing Orders.

(viii) During the period of his training the claim

Petitioner Vignesh was lethargic and envisaged the

least interest in learning the job and was irregular in

his attendance which was also intimated through

Phonogram, dated 23-06-2010 through Inter-Office

Memorandum dated 28-05-2010 of the Truck Curing

Department to the Manager-Truck, it has been referred

about the in-disciplinary actions of the claim

Petitioner Vignesh in not obeying the orders of the

superiors and the claim Petitioner Vignesh had

remained unauthorizedly absent from Training

continuously from 02-08-2010 onwards.

(ix) The Respondent Management herein had

registered a complaint as against the claim Petitioner

and two others on 02-08-2010 before the Station House

Officer, Nettapakkam Police Station, Puducherry, under

FIR No.85/2010 regarding the theft/selling of Laptop

stolen from the Truck Curing Department of the

Respondent Management and the claim Petitioner

along with two other employees were arrested and

remanded. A Criminal case u/s.340, 414 IPC r/w 34 IPC

was registered against the claim Petitioner and the

other two employees of the Respondent Management

who were remanded to judicial custody and released

on bail. Since, the claim Petitioner had not reported

for duty from 02-08-2010, the Respondent

Management had terminated the Apprenticeship

Trainee from the service with effect from 20-08-2010

for willfully abandoning the training as referred to in

Order dated 20-08-2010.

(x) The claim Petitioner after a period of nearly

7 years had submitted a petition dated 19-05-2017 to

the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry, by

admitting the fact that he was arrested on 02-08-2010

and was remanded to Kalapet Jail and later released

on bail and stated that the Respondent Management

had terminated his Apprenticeship Training on

20-08-2010 citing, the reasons of long absenteeism.

Further, the Criminal Case initiated against the claim

Petitioner under C.C380/2010 had ended in acquittal

and therefore, requested the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry,

intervene

for

reinstatement into services.

(xi) The Respondent Management has submitted

a detailed response dated 18-09-2017 by highlighting

about the terms and conditions of the Apprenticeship

Order and as the claim Petitioner remained

unauthorizedly absent from training from 02-08-2010,

the Respondent Management had terminated the

Apprenticeship Training on 20-08-2010.

(xii) The Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry,

failed the Conciliation and referred the matter for

adjudication. The claim Petitioner is estopped from

seeking reinstatement for training as the Respondent

Management had invoked the clauses of the

Apprenticeship order issued to the claim Petitioner

for termination of the training as it is an admitted fact

that the claim Petitioner did not report for training

from 02-08-2010 onwards. The claim petition cannot

be entertained as the claim Petitioner was terminated

from training only on the ground of unauthorized

absence from 02-08-2020 onwards and not otherwise.

(xiii) Merely because the Criminal Case under

C.C.380/2010 had ended in acquittal on 20-10-2016,

it cannot be considered as a ground for automatic

387

9 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

reinstatement for continuation of the Apprenticeship

Training. Further, the claim Petitioner was terminated

even before the completion of 42 months of training

period for remaining unauthorizedly absent from

02-08-2010 onwards as admitted by the Petitioner and

there cannot be any continuation of training after

a period of nearly 7 years from the termination

of training period.

(xiv) Even assuming without admitting, the terms

and conditions of the Apprenticeship Order stipulate

that “the Company does not guarantee any automatic

confirmation in Services at the end of Apprenticeship

period”. The claim Petitioner was terminated from

training for the reasons stated in the letter dated

20-08-2010 which is in the midst of the training period

and has no locus-standi to claim it as a matter of right

and discipline cannot be compromised even remotely

even during the period of Apprenticeship.

(xv) The claim Petitioner while joining as

apprentice in the Respondent Management and is no

estopped from challenging the said Clauses of the

Apprenticeship Order and on the date of the

Termination they continued to be as Apprentices

only. The claim Petitioner was not issued with any

Written Order of Probation and therefore, the relief

for reinstatement cannot be entertained. Hence,

prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Point for determination:

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for an order to

reinstate him in the Respondent Management in the

similar post/job or any other suitable job and other

attendant charges, perks and allowances as claimed

in the claim petition?

5. On Point:

Petitioner himself examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to

P5 were marked. During cross examination of PWl, on

respondent side Ex.Rl to R9 were marked. One

Jeyakumar, Deputy Manager (HR) of Respondent

Company examined as RW1. Through him Ex.Rl0 to

R14 were marked.

6. On the Point:

This Industrial Dispute has been referred over

non-employment of the claim Petitioner. According

to the Petitioner, he was an Apprentice under the

Respondent Company from 01-06-2008. While so, on

02-08-2010 a criminal case was registered against him

under section 381 of IPC charging him that he had

stolen a Laptop from the Respondent Company. The

Respondent Management terminated him from service

on 20-08-2010 for the reason of long absenteeism and

pending Criminal Case. After a full trial, the said

Criminal Case was ended in acquittal thereby

acquitting the Petitioner from the charges on

20-10-2016. He therefore, approached the Respondent

Management for his reinstatement. But, it was

declined. Thereafter, he approached the Labour

Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry and the same is

ended in failure. Thus, the dispute has been referred

before this Court.

7. It is contended on the side of the Petitioner that

though he was acquitted from the alleged criminal

charges. Petitioner is not able to join any other

employment with the stigma attached due to the

allegations made by the Respondent Management. Thus,

he prayed for reinstatement in the Respondent

Management with all other benefits.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

also referred and relied upon CDJ 1994 SC 1065 wherein,

it is observed that after the apprentice period, the

employee was made to work in a C Grade job against a

clear vacant which occurred due to a transfer of a person

who was working in the said job. The Labour Court held

that he was a workman and the same was set aside by

the Hon’ble High Court. But, in the Civil Appeal, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reinstated the employee

and held that he is a workman and thereby confirmed the

Judgment of the Labour Court. This referred case is not

applicable to the present case on hand. In the above

referred case apprentice period was over and the

employee was working in the vacant post of Grade C.

Whereas, in the present case, the claim Petitioner had

joined

apprentice

and

not

completed

his

apprenticeship. During his apprenticeship training, his

Apprenticeship period got ceased. Hence, this case is

not applicable to the present case.

9. Other case laws relied on the Petitioner side which

has been reported in CDJ 2003 GHC 182 wherein, the

Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has observed that, no

training was given to the workman under the Apprentice

Act and he should be considered as workman under

section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman

was appointed in 1989 and his services terminated in

1990 under the provisions of Apprentice Act 1961 but,

the agreement of Apprentice has not been registered, it

was held as that he was an workman. CDJ 2005 MHC

815- The whole object of Industrial Law is to help the

weaker section in the society (the workmen) and give

them protection from exploitation. In our opinion, there

can be no estoppel against a person who accepts his

designation as an apprentice, but later on raises a plea

that in fact he was not an apprentice but was doing the

work of a workman. CDJ 1994 SC 709 and CDJ 1994

SC 1065.

388

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[9 May 2023

10. Whereas, in this case there is an Apprentice

Appointment Order and the Respondent Management

evolves its own Training Scheme. As the workmen have

to be imparted knowledge about various types of

materials, parts, machines, processes, etc., the Training

imparted “on the job training” for a period lasting 42

months. Admittedly, the training was not completed.

Before the completion of training, the claim Petitioner’s

service got terminated due to his long absenteeism.

Hence, the case laws relied by the Petitioner counsel are

not applicable to the present case in hand.

11. On the other hand, it is contended by the

Respondent Management that Petitioner was issued

with an Order of Apprenticeship on 01-06-2008 as an

Apprentice Trainee under the Apprenticeship

Scheme of the Respondent Management. As per the

Apprenticeship Training Order, the claim Petitioner has

to undergo 42 months training in 4 spells. During each

spell the Respondent Management will assess the

Performance of the Apprentice trainee as envisaged in

the training scheme and based on the assessment, he

will be moved to the next spell.

12. It is also contended that as per clause 3.6 of the

Certified

Standing

Order

the

Respondent

Management on completion of the total Apprenticeship

period, the services will stand automatically terminated.

May be considered for the post of Probationer on

satisfactory completion of training by the company at

its discretion depending upon the exigencies and

vacancy position. The status as an apprentice will not

change until it is changed by the company in writing.

Termination of the trainee (Apprentice) either by efflux

of time or the trainee not reporting for training or the

trainee indulging in, in-disciplinary activities during the

training period, the aggrieved trainee cannot claim

continuation of training or reinstatement as a matter of

right as the Apprentice cannot redesignated himself as

a workman on par with regular workman.

13. The learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondent Management relied upon High Court of

Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application

No. 15497 of 2007-Shankarbhai LebabhaiVankar vs.

Executive Engineer, wherein, it is held that “In present

petition, the Petitioner has challenged award dated

05-04-2007 passed by the learned Labour Court in

Reference (LCH) No. 163 of 2002 whereby the learned

Labour Court rejected the reference in light of the

finding of fact that the claimant was engaged as

Apprentice under provisions of the Apprentices Act,

1961 (‘the Act’ for short) and that, therefore, the

claimant cannot be termed ‘workman’ and consequently,

the reference would not be maintainable and cannot be

adjudicated”. In this case, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

has confirmed the finding of Labour Court that the

claimant was engaged as Apprentice under provisions

of Apprentice Act 1961 and that therefore, he cannot

be termed as “workman” under Section 2(s) ID Act, 1947

the reference cannot be entertained. Next case laws

relied is Punjab & Sind Bank and Ors. vs. Sakattar Singh

on 29 November 2000 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in Appeal (Civil) 12795 1996; In

Chandubhar Punjabhai Talpada vs. Deputy Executive

Engineer decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat

at Ahmedabad.

14. Therefore, it is first and foremost to decide that

whether the Apprentice involves in this Industrial

Dispute falls under the category of workman as defined

under section 2(s) of ID Act? Under the provisions of

section 2(s) of ID Act, Apprentice is included in the

category of workman. The opening words of section 2(s)

of ID Act is such it specifically denotes that any person

including an Apprentice is a workman. Therefore, under

ID Act an Apprentice is a workman. Whereas, the

standing order of Respondent Management filed and

marked as Ex.Rl through PW1 during cross-examination.

In the Certified Standing Order Ex.Rl, the clause 3.6 runs

thus, “Apprentice under Apprenticeship Act 1961, under

Company Training Scheme/Trainee” means a learner

who is paid a stipend and whose terms and conditions

are governed by the provisions of the Apprentices Act,

1961 and amendments thereof or one who is recruited

to undergo Apprenticeship as per the company scheme

either as Production Apprentice or Engineer Apprentice

or Apprentices for Service Department. The status as

an Apprentice will not change until it is change by the

company in writing. During the time of Apprenticeship

they will receive only stipend. At the expiry of any spell

trainee will be assessed and evaluated and on

satisfactory completion of the training in each spell, the

trainee will be put on training for the next spell. On

completion of the total Apprenticeship period, the

services as an Apprentice will stand automatically

terminated. However, they may be considered for the

post of probationer on satisfactory completion of

training by the company at its discretion depending

upon the exigencies and vacancy position. Further, in

the same Ex.R1 Standing Orders for employees of the

Respondent Management in Clause 22.0 Termination of

Employment: Clause 22.1 subject to the provisions

relating to the misconduct as provided in this service

conditions, the service of the workman may be

terminated by the company for a reasonable cause

giving one month notice in writing or wages in lieu

389

9 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

thereof. However, no notice/wages in lieu thereof shall

be necessary in case of a Probationary/Casual/

Temporary/Apprentice/Trainee/Part-time workman.

15. As per section 18 of the Apprentices Act, 1961

Apprentices are trainees and not workers. -Save as

otherwise provided in this Act,–

(a) every apprentice undergoing apprenticeship

training in a designated trade in an establishment

shall be a trainee and not a worker; and

(b) the provisions of any law with respect to

labour shall not apply to or in relation to such

apprentice.

According to section 2(r) in The Apprentices Act,

1961-18 [(r) “worker” means, any person who is

employed for wages in any kind of work and who gets

his wages directly from the employer, but, shall not

include an apprentice referred to in clause (aa)].

16. Hence, from the above provisions of the

Apprenticeship Act 1961, an Apprentice is not a

workman whereas, as per the Industrial Disputes Act, a

workman includes an Apprentice. But, when an

apprentice is appointed under the Apprentices Act, 1961

he is not a workman under section 2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. An apprentice, after completion of

his apprenticeship is not having any legal right to

demand regularization from the employer. As per

provision of the Apprentices Act, 1961, an apprentice

is a trainee and not a worker/workman. The Provisions

of labour laws shall not be applicable to an apprentice

for seeking any relief from the management under the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Appointment letter,

indicating that petitioner was engaged as apprentice in

trade of Lineman against stipend under the Act of 1961

by entering into required contract which was informed

to Apprenticeship Adviser, is a sufficient proof to

establishment that the petitioner was an apprentice

and not a workman. Shankarbhai Lebabhai Vankar vs.

Executive Engineer and Ors. 2017 (Guj. H.C.)

17. The Apprentices Act, 1961 is a special Act as

regards, the regularization and training condition of the

Apprentices are concerned. Only for the purpose of

Verification of Membership and Recognition of Trade

Unions, the Rules, 1994, which adopts the definition of

‘workman’ as provided in section 2(s) of the I.D. Act,

1947 shall be special laws and the Apprentices Act, 1961

is a general law in that field. Therefore, The I.D. Act, 1947

and Rules, 1994 must prevail over the Apprentices

Act, 1961 only so far the issue as to whether an

apprentice is a workman for the purpose of verification

of membership and recognition of Trade Union is

concerned (M/S Larsen & Toubro Limited vs State Of

Orissa and Others... Opp.... on 4 March, 2011).

18. In Maya Mathew vs. State Of Kerala and Ors. on

18 February, 2010, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that

Special Rules being later in point of time would prevail

over the General Rule. When the rule making authority

being aware of existence of provisions concerned of

General Rules, and it chooses to subsequently make a

contrary provision in Special Rules, it is to be inferred

that the subsequent rule was intended to prevail over

the General Rule.

19. Therefore, the claim Petitioner who was appointed

as Apprentice under Apprenticeship Act, 1961 by the

Respondent Management cannot be placed under the

workman category. As discussed above as per the

Apprenticeship Act, 1961 Apprentice is not a workman

under section 18 and 2(r) of the Act. Though section

2 (s) of ID Act includes an Apprentice as workman only

for the purpose of Verification of Membership and

Recognition of Trade Unions, the Rules, 1994, which

adopts the definition of'workman1 as provided in

Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, an apprentice appointed

under Apprenticeship Act 1961 as found in this case

cannot be termed as workman for the purpose of the

regularization and training condition of the Apprentices

are concerned. Therefore, the claim Petitioner is not

a workman.

20. In National Small Industries Corporation Limited

case, the point for decision was whether in view of

section 18 of the Act, 1961. the 1st Additional Labour

Court, Chennai, was justified in holding that the

respondent who had been appointed as an apprentice

by the appellant therein was a ‘workman’ within the

meaning of section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and the

termination of the respondent's apprenticeship was in

violation of section 25-F of the I.D. Act and

consequently he was entitled to reinstatement and

continuity in service with all back wages and other

concessions accrued to him. The Hon’ble Apex Court

held that even if, it is accepted that respondent was a

‘workman’ within the meaning of the I.D. Act on

account of contractual tenure his case would come

within the exception of Clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of

the Act thereof. In such case also the provision of

section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 would have no

application to the respondent’s case.

21. Since he is not a workman and his employment

was under contract i.e., Apprentice Order Ex.Pl. Even

if, it is considered as workman, he comes under the

exception clause of 25(oo) (bb) of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. Therefore, he is not entitled for any relief

under section 25 (F) of the I.D. Act.

390

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[9 May 2023

22. The next point needs consideration is whether

stigma attached to him on the issuance of Termination

order Ex.R6. Termination of the claim Petitioner’s

services as Apprentice was made under Ex.R6. On close

and careful perusal of Ex.R6, I don’t find anywhere

about the allegation of Criminal charges nor Criminal

case as a reason for his termination. The reason stated

for the cessation of Apprenticeship period with

immediate effect is due to continuous unauthorized

absence from 02-08-2010. It is also mentioned in Ex.R6

that during the Apprenticeship period, the claim

Petitioner was not showing interest in learning the job.

Therefore, as per clause 8 of the Apprenticeship

Appointment Order Ex.P1 during each spell of the

training, Apprenticeship is liable to be terminated by the

company without notice or assigning any reason

thereto. In Clause 13 of Ex.Pl Apprenticeship

Appointment Order it is mentioned that the claim

Petitioner will be subject to the Standing Orders and

the Rules and Regulations of the company as are

inforce from time to time. Similarly, in Clause 15 of Ex.Pl

there is a clear mention that if guilty at any time of

neglect of work, insubordination, indulgence or

abetment of any misconduct involving moral turpitude

or breach of any of the terms and conditions of the

Appointment, the company shall have the right to

terminate the appointment without notice or

compensation in lieu of notice.

23. On the Respondent Management side, Ex.R10,

R3 and R4 are marked to show that he was not a regular

attendee of training work during his Apprenticeship

period. Ex.R4 is a leave letter of the claim Petitioner

seeking leave on 22-07-2010 and 25-07-2010. In which

the Claim Petitioner has given assurance that he will not

go on leave in future. Ex.R3 is a phonogram issued by

the Officer - HR of the Respondent Management to the

claim Petitioner informing his unauthorized absence

from 16-06-2010 to 23-06-2010 and intimating to report

HR Department immediately or else action will be taken.

Ex.R10 is inter office memorandum, dated 28-05-2010

regarding disciplinary’ lagging wherein, it is mentioned

about the claim Petitioner’s insubordination and

arrogant behaviour at work place. Though, these

exhibits were marked on the Respondent side, but, in

the Termination Order Ex.R6, dated 20-08-2010, nothing

mentioned against the claim Petitioner so as to attach

any stigma against him. The only reason stated in the

Termination Order Ex.R6 is his unauthorized long absent.

Therefore, as per the Apprenticeship Appointment Order

Ex.P1 and the Standing Order Ex.R1, the Respondent

Management has the discretion to terminate the period

of Apprenticeship if, there is any violation of terms and

conditions found therein under the contract Ex.P1.

24. In Sk. Akbar Alii vs State Of Odisha And Others

on 9 March, 2022 it has observed “in Southern Railway

Officers’ Association vs. Union of India (2009) 9 SCC 24,

wherein, it was observed that acquittal in a criminal case

by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an

order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary

authority as the position of law is well settled that an

order of dismissal can still be passed even if, the

delinquent had been acquitted of the criminal charge.

Another decision in Inspector General of Police vs.

Samuthiram (2013) I SCC 598 was also referred to by the

Supreme Court in Heem Singh case to hold that unless

the accused has an honourable acquittal in the criminal

case as opposed to an ordinary one shall not affect the

decision in the disciplinary proceeding leading to an

automatic reinstatement. The meaning of the expression

‘honourable acquittal’ was under consideration before

the Supreme Court in RBI vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal

(1994) I SCC 541 and in that case, it was held that mere

acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement

in service and the acquittal has to be honourable, which

means, the accused is said to be fully acquitted of blame

or exonerated and the aforesaid decision was also

quoted with approval in Heem Singh case. In fact, the

celebrated and judgment legal classicus on the subject

is of the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India

AIR 1964 SC 787 in which it was held that even in the

case of acquittal, departmental proceeding may follow

where the acquittal is other than honourable. In Dalbir

Singh case (supra), the Supreme Court affirmed the view

that a disciplinary action cannot be stifled unless the

foundation is based on a false case or no evidence.

Again in State of Assam vs. Raghava Rajgopalchari 1972

SLR 44 (SC), the Supreme Court borrowed the view

expressed in Robert Stuart Wauchope vs. Emperor ILR

(1934) 61 Cal. .168, wherein, the expression ‘honourably

acquitted’ was elaborated upon and defined.

Para 10. Referring to the decisions discussed herein

above, the Court is of the view that notwithstanding

an order of acquittal which does not fully and

completely exonerate the delinquent from a criminal

charge, it would not entitle him to claim that the

disciplinary proceeding should be dropped or for that

matter, the punishment imposed as result to be set aside.

The terminologies, such as, ‘ordinary acquittal’ and

‘honourable acquittal’, as observed by the Supreme

Court, have emerged from judicial pronouncements. In

case, where the Court records that the accused has been

falsely implicated and that there was absolutely no

evidence to connect him to the crime, then it is treated

as an ‘honourable or clean acquittal’. However, if, for

various reasons, such as, lack of evidence, benefit of

doubt, prosecution witnesses turned hostile or star

391

9 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

witness resiled during trial, it would only result in an

acquittal and not an acquittal honourably. There is no

tenebrosity in the settled principles of law that if, there

is acquittal on certain grounds like benefit of doubt, etc.

from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude,

it would not automatically entitle exoneration from the

disciplinary action.

It is reiterated that an acquittal which is due to want

of evidence is not an honourable acquittal. If, after full

consideration of evidence, the same is disbelieved and

the prosecution said to have miserably failed to prove

the charges; or it is held to be false case; or neither to

be a false case nor acquitted on the ground of benefit

of doubt, under such circumstances, an acquittal may

have to be held as honourable or acquittal of all blame”.

25. Therefore, by applying the above ratio and on

perusal of Ex.P4, the Judgment in the Criminal Case,

I find that it is not first of all acquittal as a false case

or the claim Petitioner was falsely implicated in the said

offence. Therefore, on perusal of the Judgment Ex.P4,

I would say that it is not a honorable acquittal. Further,

mere acquittal and discharging from the criminal charges

by the Court will not automatically create a right for the

claim Petitioner to be reemployed as an Apprentice for

the reason that he was not terminated from the services

of Apprenticeship due to his criminal charge. His

termination was on the reason of long absenteeism, not

as he involved in a criminal case. Therefore, the

acquittal from the criminal charge will not help the claim

Petitioner any way to get the relief in his favour.

26. The learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondent referred and relied upon a case law wherein

it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in Appeal (Civil) 3791 of 2003, dated 09-03-2005

that no evidence was led by the Respondent-Workman

that he had made any effort to seek reinstatement or

complained against the termination. Here in the instant

case also the claim Petitioner has approached the

Respondent Management only in 2017 (Ex.P3), after 7

years from the date of his Termination Order. No proof

produced to show that he approached immediately after

his termination. Therefore, the case law relied also

squarely applicable to this case.

27. From the above discussions and findings, I hold

that the claim Petitioner is not a workman as per the

Apprenticeship Act 1961, he is not entitled for any

reliefs under the provision of section 25(F) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, his termination of services from

the Apprenticeship was only due to long unauthorized

absenteeism and Respondent Management has shown

that it got discretion to discontinue the Apprenticeship

during the period of Apprenticeship as envisaged under

the Apprenticeship Appointment Order Ex.P1 and

Standing Order Ex.R1. Thus, the Termination Order

Ex.R6 holds good and not liable to be set aside. Thus,

the point for determination is decided as against the

claim Petitioner.

28. In the result, the Reference is unjustified and the

Industrial Dispute is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this

the 07th day of January, 2023.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW1

— 18-12-2019

Thiru. Vignesh

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.Pl

— 01-06-2008

Photocopy

the

Apprenticeship order issued

by the General Manager of

Respondent.

Ex.P2 — 02-08-2010

Photocopy

the

FIR

Registered

against

the

Petitioner on the Complaint

of the Chief Security Officer,

MRF Limited.

Ex.P3 — 06-04-2017

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the General Manager of the

Respondent.

Ex.P4 — 20-10-2016

Photocopy of the Judgment

in CC 380/2010 against; ithis

Petition and 2 others.

Ex.P5 — 16-05-2018

Photocopy of the Failure

Report given by the Labour

Officer

(Conciliation),

Puducherry

List of respondent’s witness:

RW1

— 08-07-2022

Jeyakumar

List of Respondents’s Exhibits:

Ex.R1 — —

Certified Standing Order

of MRF Limited, Puducherry.

Ex.R2 — 31-07-2008

Photocopy of the letter on

revision of stipend to the

Claim Petitioner.

392

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[9 May 2023

Ex.R3 — 23-06-2010

Photocopy of the Phonogram

sent to the Claim Petitioner.

Ex.R4 — —

Photocopy of the letter

seeking permission for Leave.

Ex.R5 — 20-10-2016

Photocopy of the Judgment

in CC 380/2010 of the

Judicial Magistrate - I,

Puducherry.

Ex.R6 — 20-08-2010

Photocopy of the Termination

Order issued to the Claim

Petitioner.

Ex.R7 — 07-06-2017

Notice of Remarks of the

Labour Officer (Conciliation)

Puducherry under No.755/

LO(C)/AIL/2017 along with

letter dated 19-05-2017 of

the Claim Petitioner.

Ex.R8 — 18-09-2017

Photocopy of the reply of

the Respondent Management

to the Notice of Remarks

dated 07-06-2017

Ex.R9 — 16-05-2018

Photocopy of the Failure

Report

the

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.R10 — 28-05-2010

Photocopy of the Inter

Office Memorandum of the

Truck Curing Department to

the Manager - Truck.

Ex.R11 — 08-07-2010

Photocopy of the e-mail of

the Chief Security Officer to

the

officials

the

Respondent Management.

Ex.R12 — 19-08-2010

Photocopy

the

Inter-Office Memorandum.

Ex.R13 — 23-08-2010

Photocopy of the letter of

the Plant Manager of the

Respondent Management to

the Judicial Magistrate -I,

Puducherry.

Ex.R14 — 21-06-2018

Photocopy of the Order of

the Under Secretary to the

Government of Puducherry.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court,

Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KARAIKAL

NO. 1714/CEO/KKL/E3(Exam)/2023/774.

Karaikal, dated 19th April 2023.

NOTIFICATION

It is hereby informed that the following candidate has lost her original SSLC Mark Certificate beyond the

scope of recovery, the necessary steps have been taken to issue duplicate certificates. If, anyone finds the original

Mark Certificate, it may be sent to the Secretary, State Board of School Examinations (Sec.), College Road, Chennai –

600 006 for cancellation, as it is no longer valid.

Sl.

Name and address

Sl. No. of

Permanent

School in which

No.

of the applicant

session and

the mark

registration

studied last

year

certificate

No.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Ms. Saraswathi. J

1851951, April 2013

2295217

—

Karma Veerar Kamarajar Government

High School, Kurumbagaram,

Karaikal.

K. RAJASEKARAN,

Chief Educational Officer.