IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 1942 of 1999(F) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- SOBHANA @ SOBHA, KALLUVILA HOUSE, T.K.M. COLLEGE P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR SMT.K.GIRIJA SMT.K.A.MAYA RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, DR. NAIR'S HOSPITAL, KOLLAM. 2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 1942 of 1999 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.3228/1999 IN O.P.NO.1942 OF 1999 DISMISSED. 26.2.2008 SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD NIL FILED BY THE PETITONER BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD 10.6.1993 FILED BY R1 BEFORE R2. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 1.7.1998 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DATED 9.5.1991 FILED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA PRIVATE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES FEDERATION (UTUC), INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE UTUC UNION BEFORE R2 IN I.A.NO.141/90. EXT.P6: COPY OF AWARD IN I.A.BI.141/90 DTD 5.11.1994 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No.1942 OF 1999 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 award of the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam in I.D. No. 8/1999, which is an industrial dispute registered under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Another industrial dispute, award in which is Ext.P6, was pending before the Industrial tribunal in respect of certain demands raised by the Union of employees of the management regarding permanency of workers, supply of uniform, washing allowance etc. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act contending that while that industrial dispute was pending, the petitioner’s services were terminated in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is that complaint, which has been registered as an industrial dispute and adjudicated under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act which culminated in Ext.P3 award. The petitioner’s contention is that she was an employee of the 1st respondent management whose services were terminated while the other industrial dispute O.P.NO.1942/99 2 was pending, without obtaining permission of the Tribunal before whom the other industrial dispute was pending. 2. The management raised a contention that she was not an employee at all, but only a trainee who was given facility of undergoing training under an agreement executed by her for a specified period and when the period of training was over, she had to leave the establishment, automatically. 3. The contention now raised by the petitioner is that assuming that the petitioner was a trainee, by virtue of definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, apprentice also being included in the definition of ‘workman’ she is entitled to protection of the Industrial Disputes Act, in which case petitioner's service cannot be dispensed with, without complying with the procedure for retrenchment. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The petitioner’s contention was that she was appointed as a Pharmacist in the hospital of the 1st respondent. However, the Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced before it, including O.P.NO.1942/99 3 that of the Director of the Institute, who issued certificate to the petitioner, proved that the petitioner had no valid certificate, which would make her eligible for appointment as Pharmacist. The management had produced before the Tribunal the application and agreement signed by the petitioner for the purpose of permitting her to undergo training in the hospital. The petitioner flatly denied having executed those documents. The management had taken pains to get the signatures verified by the Forensic Science Laboratory and the Joint Director of the Laboratory who prepared a report for verifying the documents has also given evidence MW4. He categorically proved that the signatures in the documents were that of the petitioner. When the application and training agreement have been proved, once the period of training is over, the petitioner has to naturally leave the institution even if she comes within the purview of the definition of ‘workman’. When her engagement as a trainee is only for a specified period, she cannot claim to continue in the establishment beyond the period of training fixed in the agreement for O.P.NO.1942/99 4 training. Therefore I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner against Ext.P3 award and I do not find any infirmity in the award. Accordingly the original petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.NO.1942/99 5