Aloke Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) This writ petition at the instance of the employer was heard along with Writ Petition No. 3884 of 1994, Om Prakash Upadhya v. The Labour Court and Anr., filed at the instance of the workman and both were having the same award as subject matter of challenge.
(2.) A dispute as raised relating to loss of employment of the workman concerned which ultimately ended in the impugned award granting reinstatement but refusing back wages. The workman challenged the award to the extent it refused back wages. The contention of the employer is against reinstatement as the workman was appointed as Apprentice, initially for one year from January 29, 1987 to January 20, 1988 and thereafter on the oral request of the workman he was again appointed as apprentice for a further period of one year between April 1988 and April 20, 1989.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner employer contended that as the petitioner's employment was under the Apprentice Act, he is not a workman within the meaning of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the award requires to be quashed. The second contention is that the employment of the workman came to automatic end on expiry of the period of employment itself indicated by the appointment letter and, therefore it did not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Law has been relied on as decided in the case of Municipall Committee Tauru v. Harpal Singh and Ors. 1999-I-LLJ-1028 (SC), Ram Dular Paswaft and Ors. v. P. O. Labour Court and Ors., 1999-I-LLJ-451 (Pat-DB), Vinod and Ors. v. District Judge, Pratapgarh and Ors., 1996 (73) FLR 1420; Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1998-II-LLJ-15 (SC), Mentitec India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1996-I-LLJ-23 (All), Achudan v. Babu 1997-I-LLJ-621 (Ker) and Sharma Das and Ors. v. The Superintendent and Ors., 1997 (75) FLR 945.;