1. ' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---According to the petitioner from 3-11-1988 he was employed as Trade Apprentice in Respondent company M/s. Zeal Pak Cement Factory Ltd, but his youth was used as helper in different departments, and therefore, was a worker within the purview of labour laws. That during his job as helper in different departments he never gave any cause of action to his employer but all of sudden by letter dated 2-11-1991 issued by Manager Administration his services were terminated from 9-11-1991. According to the petitioner the Manager Administration was not competent to terminate his services. He worked as helper in different departments and acquired the status of workman, therefore, his services could not be terminated as apprentice. He sent grievance notice to the respondent which was not redressed. Thereafter, he filed case before the Presiding Officer, Labor Court No,VI, Hyderabad under section 25-A oel.R.O., 1969, for setting aside his termination order as well as re-instatement with back benefits. After filing of the application before the learned Presiding Officer, Labor Court, Hyderabad, the respondent submitted written-statement thereby denying the applicant's assertion. Contention of the respondent before the Labor Court was that the applicant was appointed as Trade Apprentice from 3-11-1988 for a period of 3 years and after completion of his training period his apprenticeship was terminated.
2. The respondent denied if applicant worked in any other capacity as helper or otherwise in any department of respondent factory but he worked as Trade Apprentice in Mechanical Department of the respondent factory. The respondent further contended that the applicant was appointed as apprentice for a period of 3 years and his services were terminated on completion of his training.
3. ' Before Presiding Officer, Labor Court the applicant filed his affidavit-in-evidence and he was also cross-examined. He also examined Iftikhar Ahmad as witness and on behalf of the respondent S. Usman Shah filed affidavit-in-evidence and he was also crosss-examined. After hearing learned legal representatives for the parties, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, was pleased to allow the application of the petitioner in the following terms: "Thus the result of these observations would be that applicant was appointed as Trade Apprentice but his services were used as helper in different departments. He was, therefore, workman in the respondent factory and could not have been terminated as is shown in his termination letter. His termination is, therefore, set aside and he is ordered to be reinstated in service with all back benefits."
4. ' Vide judgment dated 5-4-1994.
5. ' M/s. Zeal Pak Cement Factory Ltd. Respondent No,2, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court preferred the appeal before the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi. Learned Appellate Tribunal after hearing the parties decided the Appeal bearing No, HD-299 of 1994 and allowed the appeal in the following manner vide its Judgment dated 1-11-1995:-- "The decision of the Labour Court for reinstatement and back benefits is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed:"
6. ' Through this Constitution petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment of the learned Sindh Labor Appellate Tribunal.
7. ' Mr. Ashhad Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner was employed in the respondent's factory with effect from 3-11-1988 and remained in employment up to 9-11-1991. Though the petitioner was designated as Trade Apprentice but the respondent from the very first day to end of service utilized the petitioner's services for manual work as helper in various departments of his factory. That the learned Labor Court was pleased to allow the application of the petitioner but the same was set aside by the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. That the impugned decision of the respondent in terminating services of the petitioner was without lawful authority, misconceived, arbitrary, contrary to law and in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and that the respondent acted without jurisdiction and contrary to the law in completely ignoring the material on record establishing that the petitioner throughout the period of employment worked as helper and he was not an apprentice. That the impugned judgment of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal is bad in law and based on no evidence at all. The petitioner through this petition seeks reliefs in the following terms:
(i) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare the impugned decision of the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal to be without lawful authority, arbitrary, illegal and based on failure to apply the mind to the material on record leading to miscarriage of justice:
(ii) to set aside the impugned decision of the learned official respondent and to restore the decision of, the learned Sindh Labour Court No,VI, in grievance Petition No,93 of 1992, dated 5-4- 1994;
(iii) to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper;
(iv) to grant costs to the petitioner throughout.
8. ' After institution of the petition the respondents were served and on behalf of the respondent No,2 i,e, M/s. Zeal Pak Cement Factory Ltd. One M. Tausif son of Habibuddin Siddiqui filed his counter- affidavit, stating therein that according to Bye-laws of the company the Managing Director is a competent person to authorize any official to appear and prosecute or to defend any civil, criminal or Constitutional matters in which their company is involved. That the petitioner on the request of his father was inducted as a Trade Apprentice for three years. That after apprenticeship contract in triplicate was signed between the petitioner, respondent No,2 and the Director, Manpower Board, Labour Division, Hyderabad, the petitioner joined as a Trade Apprentice on 10-11-1988 as required under Rule 18 of the Apprentice Rules, 1966 for a period of three years. That after completion of apprenticeship period the apprenticeship training was terminated on 9-11-1991. That under the law regulating the apprenticeship of the petitioner, the respondent No,2= was not bound to offer him job nor the petitioner was entitled to serve the respondent company. That the purpose of the whole exercise and the law regulating the present case is to impart basic training to the apprentice in particular trade. The petitioner has admitted in his cross-examination that he executed an agreement of apprenticeship to learn welding with the respondent No,2 which agreement was registered with Director, Manpower Board, Government of Sindh, Registration No,1354. The petitioner during apprenticeship period was paid only stipend and no other emoluments as admissible under the Rules. Moreover, the Petitioner was not a member of the Collective Bargaining Agent.
9. ' Affidavit-in-rejoinder to this counter-affidavit has not been filed by the petitioner. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, referred the following plethora of case-law:
(1) PLD 1986 SC 103
(2) 1987 PLC 697
(3) 1989 PLC 490
(4) 1992 SCM R 505-515
(5) 1992 SCM R 227
(6) PLD 1979 Kar. 35
(7) PLD 1983 Kar.
10. 99.
11. ' Mr. Mir Muhammad Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondent No,2, contended that the present case is governed by Apprenticeship Ordinance, 1962 and Apprenticeship Rules, 1966. That the Apprenticeship Ordinance provides the procedure for a person undertaking training for any trade.
12. That the petition is barred under Rules 18, 22, 23 of the Apprenticeship Rules, 1966. Rule 23 clearly provides that it shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer an employment to an apprentice on completion of his apprenticeship nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to serve the employer after completion of his apprenticeship. Mr. Shaikh Mir Muhammad further pointed out that this case is covered under the provisions of Apprenticeship Ordinance, 1962. Specially section 2(a) and (c): provides as follows: "Definitions.---In this Ordinance, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.--
(a) ' apprentice' means a person undergoing training through the system of apprenticeship.
(c) apprenticeship' means a system of training in which an employer under takes to employ a person and to train him or have him trained systematically in an apprentice able trade for a period the duration of which had been fixed in a advance and in the course of which the apprentice is bound to work in the employer's service: ' Rule 18 provides: "18. Apprenticeship Contract.---(1) The employer and the apprentice shall, on the eve of the apprentice's recruitment, enter into a written contract to be known as the ' Apprenticeship Contract' on the prescribed form given in Appendix I".
13. ' Rule 22 provides: "22 Dispute.---Any dispute arising between the employer and the apprentice shall be referred to the competent Authority. Any party not satisfied With the decision of the competent Authority may within 30 days of despatch of notification of such decision file an appeal to the Committee, whose decision in the matter shall be fmal and binding on the parties concerned.
14. ' Rule 23 provides: "23 "Employment after training.---It shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer an employment to an apprentice on completion of his apprenticeship nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to serve the employer after completion of his apprenticeship."
15. ' It would be pertinent to refer to Annexure 'A' which is filed by the Petitioner issued by the Manager Administration of the respondents, which reads as under: "Mr. Shaukat Ali S/o Sahar Gull, Trade Apprentice (Welder), C.No, 5025, Mechanical Department, Z.P.C.F. Ltd., Hyderabad.
16. ' Sub: Completion of Apprenticeship under Apprenticeship Ordinance, 1962 and Apprenticeship Rules made under section 13 of this Ordinance.
17. ' With reference to Part III of the Apprenticeship Contract dated 2-11-1988 signed by you and under Rule 18 of the Apprenticeship Rules, 1966, since you are completing your Apprenticeship period on 9-11-1991 your apprenticeship training stands terminated with effect from 9-11-1991 (A.N.) under Rule 23 of Apprenticeship Rules, 1966.
18. ' However, we shall issue Certificate of completion of training with this works in due course.
19. ' We wish you every success in your future life."
20. ' Mr. Shaikh Mir Muhammad, learned counsel for the respondent No,2, referred to the cross- examination carried on by the representative of the respondent, on Shaukat Ali, the petitioner: "My father also worked in the factory. My father had given application for my appointment as Trade Apprentice in respondent's factory."
21. ' I executed an agreement of apprenticeship welding with Zeal Pak which I produce as Exh. R.
22. 7."
23. ' With due respect to the case-law referred by Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, in our humble opinion all the cases are different, distinguishable and under whatsoever circumstances are not relevant and helpful to the case of the petitioner.
24. The case of the petitioner on the face of it as per orders issued by the respondent company, under the provisions of Apprenticeship Ordinance, 1962, and Apprenticeship Rules, 1966 referred and reproduced hereinabove is governed by the same.
25. ' We have gone through the material placed with the case and we have also given anxious thought: In view of the provisions of the Apprenticeship Ordinance, 1962 and Rules Specially 18, 22 and 23 by which the apprenticeship of the petitioner was governed, the petitioner had completed the duration of his apprenticeship which was fixed for 3 years as required under the Rules and on completion of the duration the petitioner was not employed nor any employment was offered in the factory but he was allowed to go and all this was entirely in accordance with the rules mentioned hereinabove.
26. ' For the facts. Circumstances and case-law referred to hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that this petition is devoid of merits and substance and must fail. The petition accordingly is hereby dismissed with costs.
27. ' Above are the reasons for the short order dated 18-2-1998.
THE END