M.L. Bhat, J. - (1.) The award of the Labour Court II, Kanpur dated November 29, 1990 is prayed to be quashed in this petition. The said award has directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 2 after recognising him as a workman and has also directed to regularise his services from December 17, 1985. He is entitled to get back wages also. A reference seems to have been made to the Labour Court to consider whether the termination of the service of the respondent No. 2 with effect form November 5, 1983 was proper and legal. If the termination is not treated proper and legal, what is the relief available to him? On proof of the claim of the respondent No. 2, was he entitled to work as Machine Operator and get wages of the said post and could he be regularised on the said post, if so, from which date and on what terms?
(2.) From the record it is revealed that the respondent No. 2 was enrolled as an apprentice under the Apprenticeship Act of 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1961') on November 5, 1981. The period of training was two years and in terms of the provisions of the Act on completion of training a certificate was issued to the respondent No. 2. The terms and conditions of the enrollment of the respondent No. 2 are contained in the letter dated October 27, 1981 copy whereof is annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. In view of the acceptance of the terms and conditions of the enrolment letter he is said to have been enrolled as apprentice. He was to get consolidated stipend of Rs. 130/- per month, which is reflected by Annexure 3 to the writ petition. A contract of apprenticeship under the statute is said to have been sent in triplicate to the concerned authorities for registration as required under Section 4(4) of the Act of 1961. A copy of the contract with covering letter is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. On October 13, 1983 the respondent No. 2 is said to have been informed that on completion of his training under the Act of 1961 he will be released on November 4, 1983. This is reflected by Annexure 5 to the writ petition. A certificate is said to have been issued to the respondent No. 2 on completion of his training on November 18, 1983. The said certificate was received by him without raising any objection. This is reflected by Annexure 6 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 2 seems to have raised an industrial dispute with the petitioner. His contention was that though the training period under the Act was two years but he was put in charge of Tongue Machine Operator in the department in place of the person, who was promoted from the said post to the post of Group Leader on February 5, 1982. With effect from February 5, 1982 the respondent No. 2 had started working against the vacancy caused by the promotion. The Boot factory Manager had written a note on March 12, 1982 to the Officiating Personnel Manager to confirm the petitioner as Tongue Machine Operator. Another letter is said to have been written on June 25, 1982 by the Divisional Manager for the confirmation of the respondent No. 2 on the post. The respondent No. 2 is also said to have made a representation for being designated as Tongue Machine Operator and for being made permanent and for payment of wages attached to the said post. However, his services are said to have been terminated on November 4, 1983 with effect from November 5, 1983 without any justification. The respondent No. 2 had claimed that his services were terminated illegally and without any justification. He was working against the permanent vacancy of Tongue Machine Operator with effect from November 5, 1983 and he was entitled to be paid salary of the said post and regularised with back wages.
(3.) The petitioner seems to have denied the claim of the respondent No. 2 and it is contended that he was only an apprentice under the Act of 1961, therefore, he was not a workman who could be appointed against the post of Tongue Machine Operator and paid salary. His services could not be regularised.;