SC) (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Man Singh). In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court having regard

Heard Shri S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K. Bora, learned State Counsel. The challenge made in this writ petition is the award dated 13.3.2001 passed by the learned Labour Court, Assam, in reference case No. 8/98, answering the follo wing issues against the petitioner and in favour of the management. (cid:28)1(a) s justified in terminating Shri Gopal Krishna Saha and Shri Raghu Nath Adhikary from their services / Whether the Management of M/s. Assam Asbestos Limited, Bonda Guwahati wa (b) If not, what relief the said workman are entitled to ? (cid:29) As disclosed in the writ petition, the petitioner was first appointed by the Management of M/s. Assam Asbestos Ltd. in the year 1994. Initially, he was appointed as a casual worker @ Rs. 100/- per day. When the matter rested thus, p ursuant to an employment notification, the petitioner offered his candidature fo r being engaged as Learner. He was found suitable and appointed by letter dated 2.11.1996 at a monthly stipend of Rs. 2600/- which was later on enhanced to Rs. 2800/- by Annexure-E letter dated 28.1.1997. His service having been dispensed w ith, an industrial dispute was raised on the basis of which the aforesaid refere nce was made. The learned Labour Court by its impugned award dated 13.3.2001 hav ing answered the reference against the petitioner, he filed the instant writ pet ition challenging the award. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petit ioner was the workman within the meaning of the Provisions of Industrial Dispute s Act, 1947, he was entitled to the protection envisaged under Section 25(f) of the said Act. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Bora, learned State Counsel referring to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, has contended that the petiti oner was not a workman but was only a Learner for limited duration, which was ag ain subject to the condition of the period of probation. Mr. Das, learned counse l for the petitioner in support of his argument, has placed reliance on the deci sion of the Apex Court reported in {2012(132)FLR 500}(SC) (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Vs. Man Singh). In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court having regard to the provision s of Section 25(f) and 10(i) of the aforesaid Act held that termination of servi ce of the casual labourer without notice was bad in law. However, interfering wi th the order of reinstatement in service, it was provided that in lieu of reinst atement, the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs be paid as the full and final settlement of t heir claim. Unlike the aforesaid case, it is not the case of the petitioner that he was engaged as a casual labour at the time of dispensation of his service. T he fact of the matter is that the petitioner was earlier engaged as casual labou rer but pursuant to the employment notice, he got engaged himself as a Learner f or a period of one year with the stipulation that on successful completion of le arning period, he might be engaged and would remain on probation. As per terms a nd conditions of the agreement also his service was liable to be dispensed with during the period of training. It appears that while he was undergoing the training, he was informed of his poo r and unsatisfactory performance. In this connection, Ext.8 was exhibited by th e management, He was further informed by Ext. 6 and 7 letter dated 3.4.97 and 1.

7.97 that his performance was not up to the expectation. By the said two letters , he was directed to improve. The management also proves vide Ext. 16 and 17 tha t upon dispensation of the Learnership of the petitioner, he was paid all his du es. Although, the petitioner examined himself in support of his case but he fail ed to establish that he was engaged as a casual worker. I have perused the written statement of the petitioner in support of his case, i n which also there is no averment that he being a workman/ casual worker was ent itled to the protection under Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the deposition of the wi tness No.2, examined by the management, so as to contend that the petitioner was a casual employee entitling him to the protection under Section 25(f) of the In dustrial Disputes Act. On perusal of the deposition of the witness No.2, nothing is discernible to show that there is any statement recognizing the petitioner t o be an workman. In the cross examination, the said witness had only stated that there were many casual and regular employees and that the petitioner had joined before his joining the Management. Irrespective of the aforesaid evidence, when the fact of the matter is that as p er the own showing of the petitioner he was engaged as a Learner for a limited d uration of one year with the clear stipulation that Learnership could be dispens ed with at any time on the ground of unsatisfactory performance, coupled with t he fact that his Learnership was dispensed with within 7(seven) months of such e ngagement, would go to show that the petitioner was not a casual worker, so as t o attract the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Act. In Man Singh (supra), the Apex Court while interfering with the order of reinsta tement in service, directed payment of Rs. 2 lakhs to the workmen in view of vio lation of Section 25(f) and 10(i) of the act. In that case, it was an establishe d fact that the workmen were all casual labourers engaged on daily wages. Unlike the said case, the petitioner was engaged as a Learner on payment of monthly st ipend of Rs. 2600/- which was later on enhanced to Rs. 2800/-. His Learnership w as dispensed with as per the provisions of the terms and conditions of the agree ment. All the above aspects of the matter having discussed by the learned Labour Court and I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ pe tition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.