- (1.) The respondent was appointed as an apprentice for one year on a monthly stipend of Rs. 300. 00 for getting training of General clerk. His engagement was under the provisions of Apprentices Act for which a contract was also entered into between the parties on 29.1.1997. On completion of his training for a period of one year his engagement stood dis-continued. It is claimed that the respondent could not gain full knowledge during his training and, therefore, he requested for one more year of training under the appellant. At his behest, he was engaged for one more year as an Apprentice. When that period came to an end on 21.4.1989, it is stated that his engagement as Apprentice came to an end. The respondent, however, raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court by the State Government under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The contention put forth on behalf of the appellant that the respondent is not an employee of the appellant and there was no relationship of master and servant between them was not accepted by the Labour court. The Labour Court found that though the respondent was initially appointed as Apprentice for one year, his services were thereafter engaged not as an Apprentice under the apprentices Act and. therefore, it must be deemed that he was in some kind of employment and. therefore, termination of his services amounted to 'retrenchment' under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court also held that the claim of the appellant that the termination of employment or engagement of service of respondent was in terms of Section 2 (00) (bb) of the provisions of the Central industrial Disputes Act would not be attracted inasmuch as there was no provision akin to it in the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour court thus held that the termination of the services of the respondent is illegal and that he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. The award made by the Labour Court in the aforesaid manner was challenged in a writ petition before the High Court.
(2.) The High Court by an interim order made on 10. 5.1994 directed that the respondent should be taken back to the post in which he was employed and he should be paid the current salary subject to the final orders in the writ petition. Thereafter, the High Court upheld the award made by the Labour Court and made it clear that the engagement of services of the respondent after 21,4.1989 not being as an Apprentice under the Apprentices Act, it must be held that he was employed on regular basis falling under the definition of 'workman' under Section 2 (z) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act.
(3.) On the application of the State Act or the Central Act to the case on hand, the High court followed a Division Bench ruling in Jai kishun v. U. P. Co-operative Bank Ltd. reported in 1989 UPLBEC 149 and made it plain that the provisions of Section 2 (00) (bb) of the central Industrial Disputes Act would not apply in respect of proceedings arising under the u. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court also noticed the contrary view in this regard in the case of Smt. Pushpa Agarwal v. Regional inspectress of Girls School, Meerut reported in (1995) 70 FLR 20 but held that in Jai kishun's case (supra) the relevant provisions had been duly considered which are not taken note of in the Pushpa Agarwal's case (supra) and on that basis, it followed the decision in jai Kishan's case (supra). It is this judgment that is brought in appeal before us in these proceedings.;