An employer cannot raise a trainee’s workman status for the first time in writ proceedings.

The respondent, employed as a Driver-cum-Conductor on a trainee basis, was accused of rash and negligent driving that allegedly caused an accident.

After recording his statement, the Divisional Controller closed the proceedings; the respondent was dismissed from service effective 11 October 2007.

The respondent challenged the dismissal under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987.

The Labour Court found that both heavy rain and the respondent’s driving contributed to the accident, attributed 50% of the negligence to him, and substituted dismissal with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, without back wages or continuity of service.

The Corporation’s writ petition challenged that order, including on the grounds that a trainee was not a “workman” and that the respondent’s admission established negligence.

The respondent’s separate writ petition challenging the Labour Court’s order had been dismissed.

Whether the respondent’s status as a trainee prevented him from maintaining an application under Section 10(4-A) of the Act.

Whether the Labour Court’s modification of the dismissal order warranted interference, given the evidence concerning the accident and the disciplinary proceedings.

Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987, was the statutory basis for the respondent’s application before the Labour Court.

The Court relied on its decision in Basanagouda v. The Divisional Controller, W.P. No. 100878/2017 and connected matters, dated 25 April 2024, as settling the question whether a trainee may be considered an employee.

The Corporation had not raised the maintainability objection before the Labour Court. In any event, the Court considered the trainee-status issue settled by Basanagouda and declined to entertain the objection.

On the merits, the disciplinary proceedings consisted of the Divisional Controller recording the respondent’s statement and closing the matter; no domestic enquiry was conducted.

At the Labour Court, the Corporation’s witness was neither an eyewitness nor the person who had conducted the enquiry, and the Corporation had not examined eyewitnesses.

The Labour Court had assessed the evidence, including the circumstances of heavy rain, and attributed 50% of the negligence to the respondent, imposing a lesser punishment without back wages or other financial benefits. The High Court found no basis to disturb that assessment.

The writ petition was dismissed.