Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed by the U.P.S.E.B. challenging the award dated August 12, 1983 passed in favour of respondent No. 2 by which the termination of his service has been set aside and he has been reinstated with full back wages.
(2.) The brief facts of this case are that on March 21, 1985, along with 26 other candidates, the respondent No. 2, Sheo Mohan, Singh was selected for the post of apprentice. By order dated April 9, 1985, the petitioner-U.P.S.E.B. appointed the respondent No. 2 as an apprentice Boiler Attendant under the Apprentices Act, 1961 for a period of three years from April 11, 1985 to April 10, 1988. Since the petitioner stopped taking work from the said respondent No. 2 w.e.f. April 11, 1988, the said respondent No. 2 raised a dispute and a reference under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was made by the State Government to the Labour Court. The terms of the reference were as to whether the termination of service of Sheo Mohan Singh as Boiler Attendant w.e.f. April 11, 1988 was valid and legal, and if not, then to what benefit was he entitled to and from which date?
(3.) In the written statement filed by the respondent No. 2 it was stated that he was initially given appointment as apprentice in the trade of boiler attendant. It was his specific case that regular work of boiler attendant was being taken from him and he was even working in all the three shifts as well as at times, independent charge of boiler operator was also handed over to him. It had been categorically stated that he was not an 'apprentice' as defined either under Section 2(aa) of the Apprentices Act or Section 2(a) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He claimed to be covered by the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that his services could not be terminated except in accordance with Section 6-N of the said Act.;