Sangeeta Chandra, J. - (1.) List has been revised. None appears on behalf of the contesting respondent i.e. workman.
(2.) The petitioner U.P. State Electricity Board has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, by which the Labour Court has set aside the plea taken by the employer that the private respondent herein was not a "workman ", but an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 on the ground that the employers could not produce any registered agreement of apprenticeship, and therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No. 3, Santosh Kumar Dixit was engaged as apprentice. The Labour Court has relied upon two judgments to come to this conclusion namely, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Basant Kumar Pandey, 1990 (60) FLR 39 and the judgment rendered in the case of Karuna Shankar Tripathi v. State of U.P. and other, 1992 (65) FLR 203.
(3.) Mr P.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners- UPSEB has produced before this Court the judgment rendered in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh and another, 2004 AIR SCW 5623, wherein the Supreme Court has held that nature and character of the apprentice is nothing but that of a trainee and he is supposed to enter into a contract and by virtue of that contract he is to serve for a fixed form. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Apprentices Act only lays down that such a contract should be registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser, but by non-registration of the contract, the position of the apprentice is not changed to that of a workman.;