# Ram Babu Gupta v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Allahabad and another

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 132
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-11-25
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35099 of 2001
- **Bench:** V.C. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-babu-gupta-v-presiding-officer-labour-court-u-p-allahabad-and-another-40305
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Act
1961-Section
4Petitioner
under
unregistered
agreement-engaged for the period 22
years-termination after expiry of the
period given in agreement-Labour Court
recorded specific finding of fact-based
on relevant material on record-once
apprentice
shall
always
apprenticeunless
followed
by
letter
of
appointment-non
registration
of
agreement-not fetal-the apprentice can
not get the status of workman.

Held: Para 6 & 7

That the expression 'shall' appearing in
sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the
Apprenticeship Act, 1961 is directory and
non-registration of the contract will not
change the character of the apprentice
and the incumbent will not acquire the
status of a workman. Once an incumbent
is appointed as an apprentice he will
continue to be apprentice unless a
formal order of appointment is followed.

In the present case, after thorough
examination and critical scrutiny of the
pleadings of the parties and the relevant
material and the evidence adduced by
the parties brought on record, the
respondent no. 1- labour court has
arrived at a well reasoned award dated
11.9.2000 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ
petition). The petitioner has not been
able to demonstrate before this Court
that the findings of fact recorded in the
impugned
award
suffers
from
any
illegality, perversity or error apparent on
the face of the record. More so, the said
findings of fact, arrived at by the labour
court-respondent no. 1 on the basis of
which the impugned award has been
passed, being based on relevant material
on record, is not open to challenge
before this Court while exercising its
special and extra ordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
Case law discussed:
W.P. 19954 of 2000 decided on 26.7.2004
W.P. No. 19 of 1995 decided on 6.2.2001
2004 FLR (102) 347

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
132
upon the same sets of fact, in my view,
there is no provision of law empowering
the court to stay the departmental
proceedings merely because criminal
prosecution is pending in the criminal
court. In my opinion, the purpose of the
two proceedings are quite different. The
object of the departmental proceedings is
to ascertain whether the delinquent is
required to be retained in service or not.
On the other hand the object of criminal
prosecution is to find out whether the
offence in the penal statute has been made
out or not. Therefore, the area covered by
the two proceedings are not identical. The
object in both the proceedings are
different.
Whereas
the
departmental
proceedings are taken to maintain the
discipline and the efficiency in the
service, the criminal proceedings are
initiated
to
punish
a
person
for
committing an offence violating any
public duty. The Supreme Court has
clearly stated that where the case is of a
grave nature and involves questions of
fact and law, in that event it would be
advisable for the employer to await the
decision of a criminal court. In the present
case, there is no complicated questions of
fact and law involved, nor any evidence
has been led by the petitioner to show as
to how he was prejudiced in the
continuance
of
the
departmental
proceedings. Nothing has been shown by
the petitioner as to how the proceedings in
a criminal trial would be prejudiced in the
event the domestic inquiry was not
stayed.

12. It may also be stated here that
immediately upon the issuance of the
charge-sheet, the petitioner approached
this Court. The petitioner has not even
submitted
his
explanation
and
the
departmental
proceedings
has
not
progressed. It is, therefore, difficult for
the High Court to consider whether the
matter is of such a complex nature that it
would be better to stay the departmental
proceedings pending disposal of the
criminal case. On the other hand judicial
notice can be taken of the fact that
criminal cases of this nature takes a long
time to conclude. The petitioner has
nowhere shown as to how he would be
prejudiced if he disclosed his evidence in
the departmental proceedings. Further the
disciplinary authority is the appropriate
authority to consider whether it is
worthwhile or not to await the decision of
the criminal court. In the present case, the
petitioner
has
not
approached
the
disciplinary authority and came to this
court directly.

13. For the reasons stated aforesaid,
I do not find it to be a fit case for
interference to stay the departmental
proceedings.
Consequently,
in
my
opinion, there is no merit in the case and
is
dismissed
accordingly.
In
the
circumstances of the case there shall be
no order as to cost.
Petition Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.C. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35099 of 2001

Ram Babu Gupta

...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P.,
Allahabad and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.N. Dubey
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Ram Babu Gupta V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Allahabad and another
133
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.R. Agrawal
S.C.

Apprenticeship
Act
1961-Section
4Petitioner
under
unregistered
agreement-engaged for the period 22
years-termination after expiry of the
period given in agreement-Labour Court
recorded specific finding of fact-based
on relevant material on record-once
apprentice
shall
always
apprenticeunless
followed
by
letter
of
appointment-non
registration
of
agreement-not fetal-the apprentice can
not get the status of workman.

Held: Para 6 & 7

That the expression 'shall' appearing in
sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the
Apprenticeship Act, 1961 is directory and
non-registration of the contract will not
change the character of the apprentice
and the incumbent will not acquire the
status of a workman. Once an incumbent
is appointed as an apprentice he will
continue to be apprentice unless a
formal order of appointment is followed.

In the present case, after thorough
examination and critical scrutiny of the
pleadings of the parties and the relevant
material and the evidence adduced by
the parties brought on record, the
respondent no. 1- labour court has
arrived at a well reasoned award dated
11.9.2000 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ
petition). The petitioner has not been
able to demonstrate before this Court
that the findings of fact recorded in the
impugned
award
suffers
from
any
illegality, perversity or error apparent on
the face of the record. More so, the said
findings of fact, arrived at by the labour
court-respondent no. 1 on the basis of
which the impugned award has been
passed, being based on relevant material
on record, is not open to challenge
before this Court while exercising its
special and extra ordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
Case law discussed:
W.P. 19954 of 2000 decided on 26.7.2004
W.P. No. 19 of 1995 decided on 6.2.2001
2004 FLR (102) 347

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.)

Sri S.N. Dube, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Sri Vivek Ratan, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 2 and
Learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondent no. 1 are present. Counter and
rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
On the joint request of learned counsel for
the parties, this writ petition is being
heard and finally disposed off, at this
stage

1. This writ petition has been filed
challenging the impugned award dated
11.9.2000 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ
petition) passed by the labour court
Allahabad- respondent no. 1 against the
petitioner holding that the petitioner had
not been retrenched and was not entitled
to any relief.

2. The facts of the case in brief are
that the petitioner was engaged as an
Apprentice in Mechanic Maintenance
Chemical
Plant
Trade
under
the
Apprenticeship Act, 1961 for two years
with the respondent no. 2- Indian Farmers
Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. Phoolpur,
District Allahabad (hereinafter referred to
as the IFFCO) on a stipend of Rs.335/-
per month subject to the terms and
conditions of the contract. The petitioner
had accepted the offer and the terms and
conditions mentioned in the said contract
and thereafter appended his signature on
14.7.1981. On completion of the
aforesaid
period
of
two
years,
as
apprentice training, the petitioner was
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
134
relieved w.e.f. 13.7.1983, as per the
intimation dated 13.7.1983 sent by the
respondent no. 2 to the petitioner. The
petitioner raised an industrial dispute
claiming himself to be a workman,
employed by the respondent no. 2, as
Assistant Technician. A reference was
made to the respondent no. 1 by the State
Government Under Section 4-K of the
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
whereupon adjudication case No. 136 of
1990 was registered.

3. The Presiding Officer of the
labour court- respondent no. 1 after
hearing both the parties passed the
impugned
award
dated
1.9.2000
(Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) on
the basis of findings of fact to the effect
that the petitioner had accepted the
appointment letter dated 19.6.1981 and
had joined in the IFFCO- respondent no. 2
accordingly on the basis of the terms and
the conditions provided thereunder. The
workman had also accepted the fact that
an agreement in writing had entered into
between the workman and the employer
though it was subsequent to the joining of
the petitioner. The labour court further
found that the petitioner was being paid
stipend per month as agreed in the
contract and if he had been required to
work over time, it would not convert him
into an workman.

4. Being aggrieved the petitioner has
filed this writ petition challenging the
impugned
award
dated
1.9.2000
(Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) inter
alia, on the ground that the agreement had
not been registered in accordance with the
provisions
of
Section
4
of
the
Apprenticeship Act, 1961 and he had
been required to work overtime.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
in support of his contention relied upon
the decisions rendered in M/S Kanpur
Electric Supply Company, Kanpur Vs.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II,
Kanpur & others (Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 19954 of 2000, decided on
26.7.2004), U.P. State Electricity Board
Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour
Court-I, U.P. Kanpur (Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 19 of 1995, decided on
6.2.2001) and State of Gujarat and
another
Vs.
Chauhan
Ramjibhai
Karsanbhai (2004 (102) FLR 347) on the
point that it was necessary that the
agreement should be registered before
being enforceable.

6. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent no. 2 has relied
upon the decision of the apex Court
rendered in U.P. State Electricity Board
Vs. Shri Shiv Mohan Singh and
another (JT 2004 (8) S.C. 272), on the
points as to whether the requirement of
registration of the apprenticeship contract
is mandatory or merely directory; whether
non registration of the contract renders the
apprenticeship void or illegal; whether a
person appointed as an apprentice ceases
to be an apprentice and becomes a
'workman' when the employer does not
register the contract with Apprenticeship
Advisor; and whether non registration of
the apprenticeship contract results in
breach of contract and, therefore, the
status of an incumbent is changed from
apprentice to that of a workman. The apex
Court has categorically held that the
expression 'shall' appearing in subsection
(4)
of
Section
4
of
the
Apprenticeship Act, 1961 is directory and
non-registration of the contract will not
change the character of the apprentice and
the incumbent will not acquire the status
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Ram Babu Gupta V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Allahabad and another
135
of a workman. Once an incumbent is
appointed as an apprentice he will
continue to be apprentice unless a formal
order of appointment is followed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties at length and find that the facts
of the present case is squarely covered
with the facts and the principles laid down
in the decision by the apex Court rendered
in U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Shri
Shiv Mohan Singh and another (Supra)
cited by the learned Standing Counsel for
respondent no. 2. In the present case,
after thorough examination and critical
scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties
and the relevant material and the evidence
adduced by the parties brought on record,
the respondent no. 1- labour court has
arrived at a well reasoned award dated
11.9.2000 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ
petition). The petitioner has not been able
to demonstrate before this Court that the
findings of fact recorded in the impugned
award
suffers
from
any
illegality,
perversity or error apparent on the face of
the record. More so, the said findings of
fact, arrived at by the labour courtrespondent no. 1 on the basis of which the
impugned award has been passed, being
based on relevant material on record, is
not open to challenge before this Court
while exercising its special and extra
ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails
and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Petition Dismissed.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9609 of 2004

Mohan Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
District Judge, Varanasi and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P.N. Tripathi
Sri T.N. Tiwari
S.C.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (as amended
on
2004)-Applicability-Rejection
of
application for adjournment of evidence
on the personnel ground of counselsufficient cause shown for adjournmentRejection illegal.

Held: Para 3 & 4

An amendment in the law of procedure
would ordinarily be retrospective but
that is only a presumption and where a
construction giving retrospectively to a
provision is textually inadmissible it
would have to be taken that the
provision is prospective in operation.

From a perusal of the material on record,
it
transpires
that
counsel
for
the
petitioner was busy at home due to
personal reason and could not attend the
court. It would thus appear that cause
was shown which as contained in the
application was sufficient for adjourning
the case and the trial court wrongly and
illegally rejected the same. To cap it all,
the function of the court is to advance
the cause of justice. In my view, the
court should not act with rigidity in such