RAM GOPAL DWIVEDIversusM/S KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER

                           [2017] 6 S.C.R. 414



A                        RAM GOPAL DWIVEDI
                                      v.
     M/S KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. THROUGH
                 ITS GENERAL MANAGER
B                      (Civil Appeal No. 8125 of2009)
                               JULY25,2017
      [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
          Labour Laws:
c          Industrial dispute· - Raised after termination of services of
    the appellants-workmen - Labour Court held the termination of
    workmen as illegal and directed their reinstatement with 50% back
    wages - High Court relying on *Shiv Mohan Singh case set aside the
    order of Labour Court - On appeal, held: Facts of Shiv Mohan
D   Singh's case is identical to the facts of the present case - High Court
    rightly relied on that case - Appeals dismissed.
          *U.P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh &
          Am: (2004) s sec 402 : [2004) 4 Suppl. SCR 953 -
          relied on.
E
                            Case Law Reference
        [2004) 4 Suppl. SCR 953            relied on.       Para7
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8125
    of2009.
F
          From the Judgment and Order dated 02.07.2007 of the High Court
    of Judicature at Allahabad in C. M. Writ Petition No. I 0377 of 1998.
                                    WITH
          C. A. No. 8126 of2009.
G
          Satya Mitra Garg, Ms. Manju Aggarwal, Advs. for the Appellant.
         Dr. Rajeev Sharma, Dharmendra Sharma, Vipin Kumar Sharma,
    Raghuvir Sharma, Haji Salimuddin, Advs. for the Respondent.


H
                                   414
   RAM GOPAL DWNEDI v. M/S KANPUR ELECTRICITY                                415
                 SUPPLY CO. LTD.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                             A
       ABBAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Both these appeals are
filed against the final common judgment and order dated 02.07.2007
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P
Nos. I 0377 and I 0389of1998 whereby the High Court allowed the writ
petitions filed by the respondent herein and set aside the awards dated      B
29.08.1996 and 28.02.1997 given by the Presiding Officer, LabourCourt
(Ill) Kanpur in Adjudication Case Nos. 136of1994 and 129of1994 by
which the Labour Court held that the termination of the appellants illegal
and directed their reinstatement and payment of 50% back wages.
      2. We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issue      C
involved in these appeals.
       3. The respondent is a unit of the U.P. State Electricity Board
(hereinafter referred to as "the Board"). It is known as Kanpur Electricity
Supply Company Ltd. (for short KESC). The terms and conditions of
the employees working with the respondent are governed by the statutory D
regulations framed by the Board in .exercise of its powers under Section
78 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.
       4. The appellants were engaged by the respondent to work in
their set up as trade Apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961. In
terms of the agreement, they were to undergo training in the trade of        E
Boiler Attendant/Cable Jointer. Their period of training was 3 years. It
was to come to an end after the expiry of contract period.
       5. The respondent accordingly terminated the services of the
appellant in C.A. No. 8125 of2009 on 01.08.1989 and the appellant in
C.A. No. 8126 of2009 on 13.07.1990. This gave rise to the dispute
                                                                             F
between the appellants and the respondent, which led to making of the
industrial reference to the Labour Court, Kanpur to decide as to whether
the termination of the appellants from the services was legal or/and
proper and, if so, what relief the appellants are entitled to?
      6. Parties filed their statements and adduced evidence before the
                                                                             G
Labour Court. By awards dated29.08.1996 and 28.02.1997, the Labour
Court answered the reference in appellants' favour. It was held that, (i)
the appellants were not paid any retrenchment compensation before
terminating their services; (ii) no inquiry was held; (iii) the appellant
having served with the respondent for more than two years, they were
                                                                             H
416             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 6 S.C.R.


A     entitled to the protection of labour laws. The Labour Court, therefore,
      set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement of the appellants
      together with payment of 50% of back wages.
             7. The respondent (employer), felt aggrieved of the awards, filed
      writ petitions before the High Court at Allahabad and questioned its
B     legality and correctness. By impugned judgments, the High Court allowed
      the writ petitions and set aside the awards of the Labour Court. The
      High Court held that the case at hand are fully covered by the decision
      of this Court in U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Shiv Mohan Singh
      & Anr., (2004) 8 SCC 402 against the appellants and hence the Labour
      Court erred in answering the reference in appellants' favour by setting
 c    aside the termination order and directing the appellants' reinstatement in
      service with 50% payment ofback wages. It was held that the reference
      should have been answered in respondent's favour by upholding the
      appellants' termination as legal and proper.
             8. The appellants, felt aggrieved by the impugned judgments, have
 D    filed these appeals by special leave before this Court.
            9. Heard Mr. Satya Mitra Garg, learned counsel for the appellants
      and Dr, Rajeev Sharma, leaned counsel for the respondent.
             I 0. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
 E    of the record of the case, we find no merit in these appeals.
             11. In our considered opinion, the High Court was fully justified in
      placing reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of
      U.P. State Electricity Board (supra) for allowing the respondent's
      writ petitions and setting aside of the awards of the Labour Court. Indeed,
      the facts of this case and of U.P. State Electricity Board's case
 F
      (supra) are almost identical.
            12. In fact, we find that in both the cases, the employees were
      working as Boiler Attendant/Cable Jointer in UPS EB and were appointed
      as Apprentices.
 G          13. This Court (Three Judge Bench) in the case of U.P. State
      Electricity Board (supra) examined the provisions of Apprentices Act,
      1961 in the context of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 and then
      applying the law laid down in the case set aside the award of the Labour
      Court and upheld the termination.

 H
   RAM GOPAL DWIVEDI v. M/S KANPUR ELECTRICITY                                 417
      SUPPLY CO. LTD. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

      14. This would be clear from the facts set out from the case of A
U.P. State Electricity Board (supra) in para 63 which reads as under:
         "63. Respondent 1 Shiv Mohan Singh was appointed as
      an apprentice Boiler Attendant under the Apprentices Act,
      1961 from 11-4-1985 to 10-4-1988 and underwent training
      of the U.P. State Electricity Board. His contract was drawn B
      up but not registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser. He
      completed his three years' training and a certificate to this
      effect was issued to him and he was directed to appear
      before the National Council and on passing thereof he was
      to be awarded a certificate of proficiency as a Boiler
      Attendant. From this fact it is apparent that he was appointed C
      as an apprentice trainee in the designated trade of Boiler
      Attendant. After completion of his training his services were
      terminated on 10-4-1988. It is clear from this fact that he
      was a Boiler Attendant. He completed three years' training
      and after end of the training he was relieved as per the D
      terms and conditions of the appointment as an apprentice
      in designated trade of Boiler Attendant and therefore he
      cannot be declared to be a worker under the Act and he
      cannot claim the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial
      Disputes Act, 1947 or under Section 6-N of the U.P.
      Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In this light the award given E
      by the Labour Court in Award Dispute No. 166of1991 dated
      12-8-1993 and the order dated 26-9-2002 passed in WP No.
      21560 of 1995 by the High Court cannot be sustained. Civil
      appeal is allowed. Both the orders of the High Court dated
      26-9-2002 and the award of the Labour Court dated 12-8- F
      1993 are set aside."
       15. As mentioned supra, the facts of both the cases appear identical.
In this view of the matter, the High Court, in our view, was justified in
placing reliance on the decision of this Court in U.P. State Electricity
Board (supra) and rightly allowed the respondent's (employer's) writ           G
petitions and set aside the awards of the Labour Court. It is rather
unfortunate that the Labour Court did not take note of the law laid down
in U.P. State Electricity Board's case and wrongly set aside the
termination orders. We, therefore, concur with the reasoning and the
conclusion arrived at by the High Court and uphold the impugned judgment.
                                                                               H
418             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 6 S.C.R.


A           16. In view of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the appeals,
      which thus fail and are accordingly dismissed.


      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                        Appeals dismissed.