Case: Nilesh Shivaji Sapkar Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Labour Department &amp; Others

You will be required to work in shifts.You have been offered training based on certain qualifications fixed by the management and in case you acquire any additional qualification, there is no commitment or assurance on the part of the management to upgrade your training and /or to give you higher emoluments.As discussed you shall join us for training on June 1, 2011. In case you dont join on June, 1, 2011 this offer under VWIPLTDS shall be considered as withdrawn.20. We do hope that you will utilize this opportunity to the best of yourthe Companys advantage.21. During your training, you will not be a workman and there shall be noTherefore, it is quite clear from this letter that the petitioner was made aware, knew and accepted that he was being taken in by respondent no.4 purely as a trainee. The petitioner also knew and accepted that the training included on the job and external training and also that during the training period he will not be a workman and there shall be norelationship between the petitioner and respondent no.4. The petitioner also knew that if the vacancy exists and on his satisfactorily completing the second part of the training period, the petitioner may be considered for regular employment in respondent no.2 on probation.5. Upon the end of the training period, the petitioner was not considered to have satisfactorily completed the second part and was not given employment and the petitioner was told to stop reporting in the factory of respondent no.4.

Reasoning:
In the present case, we find, that the approach of the government was right as thewere not satisfied, no reference can be made.The facts in the present case are also identical. The stand of the petitioner is that he was a workman and as that was a disputed question of fact and law, the matter should have been referred to the Labour Court.16. As held by the Apex Court in Prem Kumar (supra) and the Indian Tea Association (supra), the Court may interfere and issue a writ of mandamus only if it appears that the reasons given by the government in its opinion shows that the government took into account any consideration irrelevant or foreign. It is also clear that, while consideringto issue a writ of mandamus or not, the Court does not sit in appeal and is not entitled to consider the propriety or the satisfactory character of the reasons given by the Government.17. Therefore, the point that we need to consider is whether in the impugned order dated 12.02.2014, the government took into account any consideration, irrelevant or foreign.In the impugned order, the government has very correctly stated that the Certified Standing order is applicable to respondent no.4. The government has considered the offer letter of respondent no.4 in which it is expressly mentioned that the petitioner was being appointed only as a trainee and what was expected from him during the training period etc. We do not find anywhere the government having considered any irrelevant or foreign material to come to a conclusion that there existed no industrial dispute because the petitioner was not a workman.20. As mentioned earlier, we are not sitting in appeal over the impugned order and we are not entitled to consider the proprietary or statutory character of the reasons given by the government.21. The issue in this matter is only to consider whether the action of the government was proper or not. We cannot be influenced by other factors as to whether the petitioner will not have any other remedy etc. The petitioner, may, if he is so advised, approach any forum including the Labour Court directly and the said forum, we are sure, will consider the claims of the petitioner in accordance with law, including on jurisdiction. It is also necessary to note that many trainees, who were in the same position as the petitioner, have also been absorbed by respondent no.4 in regular employment upon successful completion of the training period.