2001 JTR(SC) 1060
2002 93 FLR 600 ; 2002 1 JCR(SC) 51 ; 2002 1 LLJ 241 ; 2002 3 LLN 104 ; 2001 6 Scale 141 ; 2002 10 SCC 89 ; 2003 SCC(L&S) 77 ; 2001 Supp1 SCR 379 ; 2002 KHC 1525 ; 2001 7 Supreme 725
2001(7) Supreme 725
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Rajendra Babu & Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. -Appellant
versus
Om Prakash Upadhyay -Respondent
C.A. No. 6116/2000
Decided on 8-8-2001
Act
Referred
:CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT : S.31
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT : S.31
UTTAR PRADESH INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT : .
(A) The UTTAR PRADESH INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES Act and the CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES Act, specifically Section 31, govern this case. Section 31(1) of the Central Act preserves the operation of any existing State Act relating to the settlement or adjudication of disputes, ensuring that the State law remains unaffected where it covers the same field. However, Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Central Act, introduced by Amendment Act 49 of 1984, defines "retrenchment" in a manner that expressly excludes certain contractual terminations, such as non-renewal of an apprenticeship contract under the Apprentices Act. Since the State Act lacked a provision akin to Section 2(oo)(bb), the Central Acts special definition would ordinarily prevail under Article 254(2)s proviso, but the applicability of the Central Act is constrained by Section 31(1), leading to the application of the State laws broader concept of retrenchment. The High Court correctly applied this interplay between the two enactments in resolving the dispute.
(B) Key legal principles include: (i) Where an engagement under a special law like the Apprentices Act ends, subsequent employment not under that special law may be deemed regular employment, falling within the definition of a workman; (ii) Termination of such employment may constitute retrenchment under the State Act even if it would not qualify as retrenchment under the Central Act due to express exclusions; (iii) Section 31(1) of the Central Act preserves the State laws operation, preventing the Central Act from overriding it unless repugnancy arises; (iv) The definition of retrenchment under the State Act is broader and includes cases that would not amount to retrenchment under the amended Central Act.
Facts of the case:
The respondent was engaged as an Apprentice under the Apprentices Act for one year with a stipend, and upon completion, was engaged for another year. After the second period ended on 21.4.1989, the engagement was terminated. The respondent raised an industrial dispute, claiming he was an employee and not merely an apprentice. The Labour Court held that his services were engaged not as an apprentice but in some other employment, amounting to retrenchment under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court upheld this finding, ruling that the termination was illegal and entitled the respondent to reinstatement.
Findings of Court:
The Labour Court found that the respondents services were not rendered as an apprentice under the Apprentices Act after the initial period and thus were akin to regular employment, making termination retrenchment under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court affirmed that the definition of workman under Section 2(z) of the State Act applied, and that Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Central Act did not apply to the proceedings under the State Act.
Issues:
Whether the respondent was an employee within the meaning of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act; whether the termination of his engagement amounted to retrenchment under the State Act; whether Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Central Act attracted to the case; and how the repugnancy between the State and Central Acts is resolved under Article 254(2) and Section 31 of the Central Act.
Ratio Decidendi:
The termination of the respondents services was illegal because, after the apprenticeship period, his engagement was not governed by the Apprentices Act but was regular employment, falling within the definition of a workman under the State Act. Since the State Act lacks a provision like Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Central Act, the broader concept of retrenchment applies, and the High Courts finding of illegal termination and entitlement to reinstatement is correct.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed, the Labour Court award is upheld, and the respondent is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service.
(A) The UTTAR PRADESH INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES Act and the CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES Act, specifically Section 31, govern this case. Section 31(1) of the Central Act preserves the operation of any existing State Act relating to the settlement or adjudication of disputes, ensuring that the State law remains unaffected where it covers the same field. However, Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Central Act, introduced by Amendment Act 49 of 1984, defines "retrenchment" in a manner that expressly excludes certain contractual terminations, such as non-renewal of an apprenticeship contract under the Apprentices Act. Since the State Act lacked a provision akin to Section 2(oo)(bb), the Central Acts special definition would ordinarily prevail under Article 254(2)s proviso, but the applicability of the Central Act is constrained by Section 31(1), leading to the application of the State laws broader concept of retrenchment. The High Court correctly applied this interplay between the two enactments in resolving the dispute.
(B) Key legal principles include: (i) Where an engagement under a special law like the Apprentices Act ends, subsequent employment not under that special law may be deemed regular employment, falling within the definition of a workman; (ii) Termination of such employment may constitute retrenchment under the State Act even if it would not qualify as retrenchment under the Central Act due to express exclusions; (iii) Section 31(1) of the Central Act preserves the State laws operation, preventing the Central Act from overriding it unless repugnancy arises; (iv) The definition of retrenchment under the State Act is broader and includes cases that would not amount to retrenchment under the amended Central Act.
Facts of the case:
The respondent was engaged as an Apprentice under the Apprentices Act for one year with a stipend, and upon completion, was engaged for another year. After the second period ended on 21.4.1989, the engagement was terminated. The respondent raised an industrial dispute, claiming he was an employee and not merely an apprentice. The Labour Court held that his services were engaged not as an apprentice but in some other employment, amounting to retrenchment under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court upheld this finding, ruling that the termination was illegal and entitled the respondent to reinstatement.
Findings of Court:
The Labour Court found that the respondents services were not rendered as an apprentice under the Apprentices Act after the initial period and thus were akin to regular employment, making termination retrenchment under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court affirmed that the definition of workman under Section 2(z) of the State Act applied, and that Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Central Act did not apply to the proceedings under the State Act.
Issues:
Whether the respondent was an employee within the meaning of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act; whether the termination of his engagement amounted to retrenchment under the State Act; whether Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Central Act attracted to the case; and how the repugnancy between the State and Central Acts is resolved under Article 254(2) and Section 31 of the Central Act.
Ratio Decidendi:
The termination of the respondents services was illegal because, after the apprenticeship period, his engagement was not governed by the Apprentices Act but was regular employment, falling within the definition of a workman under the State Act. Since the State Act lacks a provision like Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Central Act, the broader concept of retrenchment applies, and the High Courts finding of illegal termination and entitlement to reinstatement is correct.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed, the Labour Court award is upheld, and the respondent is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service.
ORDER
The respondent was appointed as an Apprentice for one year on a monthly stipend of Rs. 300/- for getting traiing of General Clerk. His engagement was under the provisions of Apprentices Act for which a contract was also entered into between the parties on 29.1.1997. On completion of his training for a period of one year his engagement stood dis-continued. It is claimed that the respondent could not gain full knowledge during his training and, therefore, he requested for one more year of training under the appellant. At his behest, he was engaged for one more year as an Apprentice. When that period came to an end on 21.4.1989, it is stated that his engagement as Apprentice came to an end. The respondent, however, raised an industrial dispute which was referred an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court by the State Government under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The contention put forth on behalf of the appellant that the respondent is not an employee of the appellant and there was no relationship of master and servant between them was not accepted by the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that though the respondent was initially appointed as Apprentice for one year, his services were thereafter engaged not as an Apprentice under the Apprentices Act and, therefore, it must be deemed that he was in some kind of employment and, therefore, termination of his services amounted to retrenchment under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court also held that the claim of the appellant that the termination of employment or engagement of service of respondent was in terms of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the provisions of the Central Industrial Disputes act would not be attracted inasmuch as there was no provision akin to in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court thus held that the termination of the services of the respondent is illegal and that he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. The award made by the Labour Court in the aforesaid manner was challenged in a writ petition before the High Court.
2. The High Court by an interim order made on 10.5.1994 directed that the respondent should be taken back to the post in which he as employed and he should be paid the current salary subject to the final ordersin the writ petition. Thereafter, the High Court upheld the award made by the Labour Court upheld the award made by the Labour Court and made it clear that the engagement of services of the respondent after 21.4.1989 not being as an Apprentice under the Apprentices Act, it must be held that he was employed on regular basis falling under the definition of workman under Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
3. On the application of the State Act or the Central Act to the case on hand, the High Court followed a Division Bench ruling in Jai Kishun v. U.P. Co-operative Bank Ltd.1 and made it plain that the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Central Industrial Disputes Act would not apply in respect of proceedings arising under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court also noticed the contrary view in this regard in the case of Smt. Pushpa Agrawal v. Regional Inspectress of Girls School, Meerut 2 but held that in Jai Kishun s case (supra). It is this judgment that is brought in appeal before us in these proceedings.
4. The definition of retrenchment under the State Act is identical to the one available in the Central Act prior to the amendment by Act, 49 of 1984. It is not in dispute that the law, as applicable then, would be applicable to the present case if the Central Act is not attracted.
5. The law is settled that under the Central Act every case of retrenchment would not include a case of contractual termination which came to be introduced under the Central Act by Amending Act 49 of 1984 which purports to exclude from the ambit of the definition of retrenchment , inter alia, : (i) termination of service of a workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or (ii) termination of the contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained in the contract of employment in that behalf. Such a case is not available under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. If the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act covers the present case then termination of the services of the respondent would certainly result in retrenchment while it is not so under the Central Industrial Disputes Act in view of exceptional clauses referred to above. While the former situation results in retrenchment, the latter situation does not amount to retrenchment if the same case would arise under the State Industrial Disputes Act. Thus operation of the two enactments would bring to the forefront the obvious repugnancy between them. In such a case as to how the question is to be resolved needs to be considered in the present case.
6. Inasmuch as the enactments, both by the State and the Centre, are under the Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India. If we vieww from that angle, the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act also covers the same field as the Central Industrial Disputes Act. However, Section 2(oo)(bb) is obviously a special provision enacted in order to understand the meaning of retrenchment and that is the law made by Parliament subsequent to the State enactment and naturally falls within the proviso to Article 254(2). If that is so, the Central Act will hold the field because in the State enactment there is no provision akin to Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Central Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, we would have taken that view but for the special provisions in the Central Act to which we will advert to hereinafer.
7. Section 1(2) of the Central Act provides that "the Act extends to whole of India" and this sub-section was substituted for the original sub-section (2) by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956 (36 of 1956) with effect from 29.8.1956. Under that Act Section 31 (which came into force from 7.10.1956) has been introduced which reads as follows ;
"31. Act not to override State laws-(1) If, immediately before the commencement of this Act, there is in force in any State any Provincial Act or State Act relating to the settlement or adjudication of disputes, the operation of such an Act in that State in relation to matters covered by that Act shall not be affected by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by this Act.
(2) For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude the Central Government or the National Tribunal from exercising any powers conferred on it by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by this Act."
8. Sub-section (1) of the said section makes it clear that the operation of the State Act will not be affected by the Central Act. With this legislative history of the law, we think the High Court is justified in its view.
9. Several decisions referred to by the learned counsel are not on the point germane to this case and, therefore, we do not propose to refer to the same.
10. In the result, the order made by the High Court is affirmed and the order made by the Labour Court shall be given effect to in full. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
***************