REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.8125 OF 2009

Ram Gopal Dwivedi                  ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

M/s Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.  Through  its General Manager     .…Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL No.8126 OF 2009

Raj Govind Singh                  ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

M/s Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.  Through  its General Manager     .…Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Both  these  appeals  are  filed  against  the  final

common judgment and order  dated 02.07.2007 passed

1

by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P.

Nos. 10377 and 10389 of 1998 whereby the High Court

allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondent herein

and  set  aside  the  awards  dated  29.08.1996  and

28.02.1997 given by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court

(III) Kanpur in Adjudication Case Nos. 136 of 1994 and

129 of  1994 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 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 regulations framed by the Board in exercise of

its powers under Section 78 (c) of the Electricity (Supply)

Act, 1948.

2

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  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 of 2009 on 01.08.1989

and  the  appellant  in  C.A.  No.  8126  of  2009  on

13.07.1990.  This  gave  rise  to  the  dispute  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  Labour  Court.  By awards dated 29.08.1996

and  28.02.1997,  the  Labour  Court  answered  the

3

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 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 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  aside  the  termination  order  and

4

directing  the  appellants’  reinstatement  in  service  with

50%  payment  of  back  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  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.

10) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties

and on perusal 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,

5

the  facts  of  this  case  and  of   U.P.  State  Electricity

Board’s case (supra) are almost identical.  

12) In  fact,   we  find  that  in  both  the  cases,  the

employees  were  working  as  Boiler  Attendant/Cable

Jointer in UPSEB and were appointed as Apprentices.  

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, 1947 and then applying the law laid down

in the case set aside the award of the Labour Court and

upheld the termination.  

14) This would be clear from the facts set out from the

case of  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 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.

6

From this fact it is apparent that he was appointed 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 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 by the Labour Court in Award Dispute  No.  166 of  1991 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 12-8-1993 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 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

7

reasoning  and  the  conclusion  arrived  at  by  the  High

Court and uphold the impugned judgment.

16) In view of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in

the  appeals,  which  thus  fail  and  are  accordingly

dismissed.      

               ………...................................J.  [R.K. AGRAWAL]

                                                               …...……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; July 25, 2017  

8