Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners-employer have questioned the award dated 30th May, 1996/1st June, 1996, passed by the Labour Court-IV, U.P., Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 38 of 1995, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-' 11 K to the writ petition.
(2.) By the order dated 15th February, 1995, the following dispute Under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was referred to for adjudication before the Labour Court, Kanpur : ^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh /kesZUnz dqekjcktis;h iq= Jh jRus'k ukjk;.k cktis;h] cqd dhfiax dksfnukad 1-7-88 ls dk;Z ls i`Fkd@oafpr fd;k tkuk mfpr,oa oS/kkfud gS \ ;fn ugh] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;kfgrykHk@{kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ fdl frfFk ,oavU; fdu fooj.kksa ds lkFk \**
(3.) The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the concerned workman Dharmendra Kumar Bajpayee was appointed by the petitioners-employer, according to the workman, as apprentice under the provisions of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961, which fact was denied by the employer before the Labour Court as well as before this Court in earlier writ petition filed by this very workman. This is admitted between the parties that the concerned workman was employed by the employer-petitioners and his services were terminated w.e.f. 1st July, 1988. The workman concerned had filed a writ petition being 42798 of 1992, before this Court with the allegations that he was appointed as apprentice by the employer and that he was put to apprentice training as Accounts Clerk, which according to the assertion made in that writ petition, the workman concerned successfully completed but, the employer respondents in that writ petition and the petitioners in the present writ petition, instead of employing the workman concerned after completion of the apprentice of training have refused to appoint the workman concerned. The writ petition filed by the workman concerned in the year 1992 was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 17th May, 1993, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below: "Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post in respect of which he has attained training in accordance with the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and to issue a letter of appointment to him, if he is otherwise eligible for the said post on availability of the post and further, if no apprentice senior to the petitioner is waiting for consideration. The petitioner shall be appointed as far as, possible within a period of one month from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before the respondents.";