B.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the Award of the Labour Court dated July 30, 1996 by which the claim of the respondent No. 1, workman, has been allowed with all consequential benefits along with back wages from the date of reference till the date of Award. In addition cost has also been awarded.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondent No. 1 raised the industrial dispute and the appropriate Government in exercise of its power under Section 4 -K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act 1947) made a reference as to whether termination of the services of the respondent No. 1 w.e.f. April 9, 1988 was in accordance with law, and if not, to what relief he was entitled to? In pursuance of the said reference, a claim petition was filed by the workman contending that he was engaged as an apprentice under the provisions of Apprentices Act, 1961 (hereinafter called Act 1961), as a Boiler Attendant. Management did not comply with the provisions of the said Act. Registration of the contract was not made nor the R.I. course was completed nor any certificate of National Council was ever granted to him. He had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year counting backward from the date of termination. Thus, his termination was in violation of the provisions of Act 1947. The management contested the claim contending that he was enrolled as an apprentice for a period of three years from April 9, 1985 to April 8, 1988. Therefore, he was not workman. After expiry of three years' period the contract of apprenticeship came to an end automatically. As he was engaged as an apprentice, the provisions of Act 1947 were not attracted. More so, the industry, i.e., Riverside Power House stood closed on January 7, 1991, therefore, no relief could be granted to the workman. In view of the aforesaid pleadings, parties were permitted to lead evidence. The Labour Court made the Award in favour of the workman, particularly, in view of the fact that the contract was not registered as required under Section 4(4) of the Act 1961, and therefore, it was not a case under the Act 1961 and the provisions of the Act 1947 were attracted.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the parties have made the same submissions which had been made before the Labour Court. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In Employees State Insurance Corpn. and Anr. v. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. and Anr. 1975 (2) SCC 835 : 1976 -I -LLJ -81, Narendra Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 275 : 1985 (1) SCC 130 : 1985 -I -LLJ -337, U. P. S. R. T. C. v. U. P. Parivahan N. S. B. Sangh AIR 1995 SC 1115 : 1995 (2) SCC 1 : 1995 -II -LLJ -854, Hanuman Prasad Chaudhary v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur, 1998 Lab IC 1014 , and Tannery & Footwear Corpn. of India Ltd v. Labour Court -II, Kanpur and Ors. 1997 -III -LLJ (Suppl) -650 (All), and U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprentice Welfare Association and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 264 : 2000 (5) SCC 438 : 2000 -II -LLJ -755 it has categorically been held that an apprentice is not an employee but merely a trainee. In Patel Pravinkumar Somnath v. Gujarat State Land Development Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. 1993 -I -LLJ -916 (Guj), a similar view was reiterated holding that a person entering into a contract of apprentice under the provisions of the Act 1961 cannot claim of ever coming into existence the relation of master and servant. The Court held that the Act 1961 'diligently contends well guarded provisions outlining the scope of term 'trainees' and denying to apprentices the benefits available under the Labour Laws.' The terms of contract of apprentice make it abundantly clear that the apprentice shall not be entitled for any other relief other than those mentioned therein. His/her engagement would stand terminated automatically on expiry of the said period and even if an apprentice remains engaged after expiry of the term, it would not make him automatically the workman.;