The facts of the case were as follows:
Virendra Kumar Sharma was appointed as an apprentice and worked as such for a short time. There was a lock out in the factory and after the lock out was lifted he worked as a general clerk in the assembly shop.

Thereafter he was orally told that his services were terminated. The worker claimed that he has worked continuously and should be considered as a permanent worker.

The factory had appointed him as an apprentice at the request of his father who was serving in the factory. He was paid a stipend at Rs 250 pm during his period of service. He was not appointed as workman by competent authority. Further as per the records, the factory was not bound to give a job after the completion of apprenticeship.

The labour court after considering rival contentions and in the light of evidence brought on record held that the respondent Sharma was not a workman. It also held that - presumption that could be raised under Sec 103 of the Factories Act 1948 stood rebutted as no appointment letter was given to the respondent; he was neither paid salary or wages and that the relationship of master & servant did not exist between the appellant factory and the respondent, apprentice.

The respondent filed an appeal against the labour court's decision to high court. The learned single judge did not find any good ground to disturb the award passed by the labour court.

Thereafter the respondent took the matter to the division bench of the high court in civil appeal. The division bench of the high court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the single judge and quashed the award of the labour court.

The present appeal to Supreme Court is against the decision of the division bench of the high court.

Supreme Court noted that the respondent was taken as apprentice on stipend of Rs 250 pm. There was neither an appointment order issued nor was the respondent paid salary or wages.

It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the presumption raised by the division bench under section 103 of Factories Act was clearly erroneous and that the said provision is not applicable in the respondent's case.

On the other hand it was contended on behalf of the respondent that he was regularly employed by the appellant and relied on a letter written by the deputy manager to the vice-president, recommending his case for confirmation.

Supreme Court noted that the labour court had on an analysis and appreciation of evidence on record refused to grant any relief to the respondent.

Further there was no evidence on record to indicate either general provident fund or ESI were deducted from the salary of the respondent. It noted that the learned single judge of high court has pointed out that not a single document was placed on record from which it could be established that the respondent was a regular employee and that the single judge did not find any illegality, impropriety or perversity in the award of labour court.

Supreme Court noted that the division bench in its order has stated "Though it is true that no appointment letter has been issued to the writ petitioner nor any payment was made to him, but still it is an established fact that he was asked to work in the factory by authorities".

Supreme Court observed that the respondent was asked to work in the factory in anticipation of securing an employment, that too by an officer who was not competent to give appointment did not make the respondent a workman.

It considered section 103 of Factories Act, 1948 regarding presumption as to employment and stated that it is rebuttable and is available only for the purpose of the said Act.

Further the above presumption is not made available in relation to an adjudication of a dispute referred to under section 10 of the Industries Disputes Act, 1947.

Supreme Court examined the provisions under Chapter X under the heading "Penalties & Procedure" of the Factories Act. The presumption in section 103 of the Factories Act is included in the above chapter. Thus the presumption in the above section is to be raised for the purpose.

Supreme Court declared "At any rate there were no good reasons sustainable in law to upset the finding of the fact recorded by labour court based on the evidence placed on record after proper appreciation of the same & more so when award was affirmed by the learned single judge. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of evidence placed on record, it is not possible to accept there was any unfair labour practice as observed in the impugned order. Hence we find it difficult to sustain the above order of the division bench. Hence the appeal is allowed & the impugned order is set aside and the award of labour court is restored."