1978 PLP 428 (PLC)

Kamal M. A. for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th Match 1976 DECISION These are three appeals against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application made by the appellants under section 25‑A, I. R. O.

2. The appellants were deputed by the Director of Y. M. C. A.. Technical Institute to ‑the respondent just for the purpose of training. During the period of training they were paid Rs.100 per months as stipend. The period of training lasts from 8 & 12 weeks, but in he present case, on the expiry of that period a request was, made by Y. M. C. A. to extend the period of training. This was agreed to by the respondent. After the training period was over they were relieved.

3. The appellants, however claimed that they were appointed ass trainee Electrician on 7th May, 1975 by the respondent on monthly salary of Rs.100 with an undertaking that on the completion of two months period of training they would be made permanent and would be made permanent and would be allowed the existing grade of Electrician in the respondent factory. They successfully completed the training period but instead of allowing them to continue, their services were terminated. So they approached the Labour Directorate and after service of grievance notice approached the Labour Court.

4. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the appellants were deputed by Y. M. C. A. to the respondent‑Company for the purpose of receiving training and their period of training was extended on the request of Y. M. C. A. He also came to the conclusion that the appellants, were never appointed by the respondent and there was no undertaking that they would be retained by the respondent in their service. On the basis of this conclusion be dismissed the applications. Aggrieved by this, the present appeals bad been filed.

5. On perusal of record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court. The evidence, which was produced in the Labour Court fully establishes the fact that the appellants were deputed by Y. M. C. A. to the respondent to receive training and they had never been employed by the respondent and, consequently, they could not claim to be in the service of the respondent. They were not entitled to be retained by the respondent on the completion of the extended period of training. Indeed, they were paid Rs. 100 per month but it was by way of stipend and not as wages. The correspondence between the Y. M. C. A. Technical Institute and the respondent fully supports the conclusion reached by the learned Presiding Officer. There is no letter of appointment issued by the respondent to employment in their service. The appellants were allowed to receive training as a matter of grace and not as matter of right and there was no cause for continuation after the completion. Their bare word cannot be accepted is view of he overwhelming documentary evidence to the contrary.

6. In result the appeals are dismissed.