DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD. versus BHOLA SINGH

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 1123 · Decided: 08-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD. 
A 
v. 
BHOLA SINGH 
FEBRUARY 8, 2005 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws: 
V.P. Industrial Disputes Act-Section 6N-Training scheme sponsored 
by State-I 1 trainees selected and absorbed in regular service-Scheme C 
withdrawn, whereupon services of remaining trainees including Respondent 
terminated-Challenge to the termination-Held, a trainee has no right to be 
absorbed-High Court erred in concluding commission of unfair labour 
practice only on the premise that services of 11 similarly situated persons had 
been regularised-It also failed to take note of the allegation that Respondent D 
did not qualify for absorption-Even where termination is without compliance 
of S.6N of the Act, re-instatement cannot be ordinarily directed when 
termination is co-terminus with the scheme-Apprentices Act, 1961. 
Respondent was appointed as a trainee/apprentice in terms of a 
scheme sponsored by State Government in the cane department of E 
Appellant Mills. 45 such trainees were interviewed, 11 of whom were 
selected and absorbed in regular service. Respondent allegedly did not 
qualify. He and the other trainees continued to perform their duties as 
trainees/apprentices. The scheme sponsored by the State Government came 
to an end and no fund therefor having been made available, the services 
of all the remaining 34 trainees including Respondent were terminated. 
Respondent was paid compensation as envisaged under Section 6N of the 
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. He raised industrial dispute but the Labour 
Court rejected it. Respondent filed writ petition questioning the Award 
F 
on which a Single Judge of High Court held that the Appellant adopted 
unfair labour practice and that there could not be any justification for G 
not employing Respondent as others had been absorbed. Hence the present 
appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
1123 
H 
A 
I 124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] I S.C.R. 
HELD: 1. In terms of the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961, a 
trainee or an apprentice has no right to be absorbed in service. It is trite 
that if the provisions of the Apprentices Act applies, the provisions of 
the Labour Laws would have no application. 11129-HI 
2.1. If the Respondent was appointed in terms of the Apprentices 
B Act, 1961, he will not be a workman. 11129-GI 
Mukesh K. Tripathi v. Senior Divisional Manager, l/C and Ors., (20041 
8 SCC 387 and U.P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh and Anr., 
(2004) 8 sec 402, relied on. 
C 
2.2. The Respondent advisedly raised the question of applicability 
of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act having regard to the provisions of the 
Apprentices Act but even assuming that he was a workman within the 
meaning ~f the provisions thereof, the Labour Court had unhesitatingly 
came to the conclusion that the statutory requirements for effecting a valid 
retrenchment in terms thereof had been complied with. A finding of fact 
D has also been arrived at by the Labour Court that the scheme sponsored 
by the State Government had come to an end. [1130-A-BI 
3. The High Court committed a manifest error in coming to the 
conclusion that the Appellant is guilty of commission of unfair labour 
practice only on the premise that the services of 11 similarly situated 
E persons had been regularized without taking into consideration the 
materials placed on record as also the finding of fact arrived at by the 
Labour Court that the services of such persons had been regularized in 
the year 1986. The High Court further failed to take notice of the fact 
that according to the Appellant, the Respondent did not qualify for his 
F absorption at that time and, thus, his services continued as apprentice with 
several other trainees and it was only when the scheme came to an end, 
the services of all the trainees had been terminated. [1130-C-DI 
4. When a workman is appointed in terms of a scheme on daily 
wages, he does not derive any legal right to be regularized in his service. 
G It is now well known that completion of 240 days of continuous service in 
a year may not by itself bE a ground for directing regularization 
particularly in a case when the workman had not been appointed in 
accordance with the extant rules. (1130-E( 
Smt. Shipra Ghoshal and Ors. v. Secretary, Department of Cane, Civil 
H Secretariat, Lucknow and Ors., (1990) 60 FLR 870, distinguished. 
DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD. v. BHOLA SINGH [SINHA, .I.] 
1125 
Executive Engineer, ZP E

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.