- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition by the employer is directed against award dated 28. 5. 1997 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (IV), U. P, Kanpur in adjudication case No. 17/96. The matter which was referred to the Labour Court was as to whether the action of the petitioner-employer in terminating the services of its workman-respondent No. 2 Suresh Chandra Sharma, Boiler attendant with effect from 12. 3. 1985 was valid or not. The case of respondent No. 2 was that he was engaged as apprentice trainee w. e. f. 12. 3. 1982 by the petitioner and he worked as boiler attendant like regular boiler attendant and that the petitioner employer did not get registered the agreement of training. It was also alleged by respondent No. 2 that petitioner employer did not arrange the facility of R. I. course and also did not arrange for training from National Council and grant of certificate to respondent No. 2. The labour Court found the allegations of respondent No. 2 to be correct and placed reliance upon an authority of this Court reported in 1992 (65) FLR 203, Karuna Shankar Tripathi and others v. State of U. P. and others, in which it has been held that as provisions of Apprentice Act, 1961 had not been complied with hence the trainee should be treated to be workman under U. P. Industrial Disputes Act [section 2 (z)]. The Supreme Court of U. P. S. E. B. v. Shiv Mohan Singh, 2004 (5) ESC 71 (SC), has held that even if provisions of Apprentice Act 1961 have not been complied with and contract has not been got registered still apprentice does not become workman. In view of the above authority of the Supreme Court this writ petition is to be allowed.
(3.) HOWEVER, learned-counsel for the petitioner has cited several authorities (13 in number ). In view of the above authority of the Supreme Court of Shiv Mohan no other authority on the point is relevant. In the written arguments on behalf of respondent No. 2, it has been stated that interim order passed by this Court was not complied with hence workman got released salary by getting issued recovery certificates from Deputy Labour Commissioner under Section 6-H (1) of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act.;