<p>The High Court has said that a trainee conductor on a temporary basis cannot be considered as a workman under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.</p>.<p>A division bench made this observation while dismissing the appeal filed by a former trainee conductor of NWKRTC challenging the removal order passed during his two-year training period.</p>.<p>The appellant was removed on November 20, 2001, after he was found guilty of charges for not issuing tickets to 14 passengers in 1999. A Labour court had ordered his reinstatement with back wages, while the single-judge bench set aside this order and upheld the removal.</p>.<p>The former trainee conductor claimed that he had completed 240 days in the corporation, preceding the date of his termination, and hence attained the status of “permanent employee’.</p>.<p>He also contended that he is entitled to the benefit under Section 25 B of Industrial Disputes Act. The corporation had also claimed that the appellant was involved in 32 such cases of not issuing the tickets.</p>.<p>“A plain reading of the training order dated December 9, 1996, selecting him as a ‘trainee conductor’ on temporary basis and deputing him to undergo training for a period of two years subject to certain conditions, leave no room for doubt that he had not been appointed on permanent basis in the services of the Corporation.</p>.<p>It was only after completion of satisfactory training, he could have been considered for appointment provided there is a vacant post and he being found suitable by the recruitment committee as contemplated under regulation 12 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment Regulations), 1982,” a division bench headed by Justice B Veerappa said.</p>
<p>The High Court has said that a trainee conductor on a temporary basis cannot be considered as a workman under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.</p>.<p>A division bench made this observation while dismissing the appeal filed by a former trainee conductor of NWKRTC challenging the removal order passed during his two-year training period.</p>.<p>The appellant was removed on November 20, 2001, after he was found guilty of charges for not issuing tickets to 14 passengers in 1999. A Labour court had ordered his reinstatement with back wages, while the single-judge bench set aside this order and upheld the removal.</p>.<p>The former trainee conductor claimed that he had completed 240 days in the corporation, preceding the date of his termination, and hence attained the status of “permanent employee’.</p>.<p>He also contended that he is entitled to the benefit under Section 25 B of Industrial Disputes Act. The corporation had also claimed that the appellant was involved in 32 such cases of not issuing the tickets.</p>.<p>“A plain reading of the training order dated December 9, 1996, selecting him as a ‘trainee conductor’ on temporary basis and deputing him to undergo training for a period of two years subject to certain conditions, leave no room for doubt that he had not been appointed on permanent basis in the services of the Corporation.</p>.<p>It was only after completion of satisfactory training, he could have been considered for appointment provided there is a vacant post and he being found suitable by the recruitment committee as contemplated under regulation 12 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment Regulations), 1982,” a division bench headed by Justice B Veerappa said.</p>