- (1.) THESE three writ petitions raise common questions for consideration and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) THE Rajasthan State Electricity Board, respondent in these writ petitions (hereinafter referred to as the Board) is a State Electricity Board constituted under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Section 11 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Apprentices Act, imposes an obligation on every employer to engage apprentices and to provide training to them in his trade in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the rules made thereunder. In pursuance of the said obligation, the Board has been engaging trade apprentices for imparting training in various trades. The Board issued an advertisement in the year 1977 inviting applications for apprenticeship training and in response to the said advertisement the petitioners submitted their applications and they were selected. Thereafter, the petitioners were engaged as trade apprentices in different trades in January/february 1978, and the period of training was three years and in the first year of training they were to be paid rs. 130 per month, in the second year, they were to be paid Rs. 140 per month and in the third year they were to be paid Rs. 150 per month. The petitioners were also required to sign a contract of apprenticeship and each of them signed the said contract. In the contract, it was provided that it shall not be obligatory on the part of the Board to offer any employment to the apprentice on completion of the period of his apprenticeship training in its establishment nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to accept an employment under the employer. Under the Apprentices Act and the Apprentices Rules, 1963, framed under the Apprentices Act (hereinafter referred to as the Apprentices Rules), an apprentice is required to pass the test conducted by the National Council for Training in Vocational Trades. Although the three years' apprenticeship training period of the petitioner expired in January/february 1981, they were continued as, apprentice-trainees beyond that period because the All India Trade Test was delayed and was held in April 1981. The result of the said test was declared on 23rd June 1981. Thereafter an order, dated 9 July 1981, was passed by the Assistant engineer of the Board whereby the services of Brij Mohan (petitioner in civil Writ Petition No. 1178 of 1981) and Vijendra (petitioner in Civil Writ petition No. 1177 of 1981), were discontinued with effect from 9 July 1981. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, dated 9 July 1981, the said petitioners have filed Writ Petition Nos. 1178 and 1177, respectively. In so far hanuman Prasad Choudhary and Prerm Narain (petitioners in S. B. Civil writ Petition No. 722 of 1981) are concerned, the said petitioners approached the Court on 30 April 1981, with the allegation that although they had not been served with the order terminating their services but the Board was likely to consider that the said petitioners are deemed to be relieved from service from 30 April 1981, and the said petitioners have prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued restraining the Board terminating the services of the petitioners as trade apprentices and that the Board may be directed to fix the petitioners in the regular pay-scale No. 2 with effect from the date on which they successfully qualified the prescribed test. These writ petitions have been contested by the Board and the Board has filed a reply to the same.
(3.) THE first contention that has been urged by Sri Kuhad, the learned counsel for the petitioners in all these writ petitions, was that the petitioners were workmen under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Industrial Disputes Act), and that they are entitled to the protection of the said Act. Sri Kuhad has submitted that the termination of the services of the petitioners amounts to retrenchment under section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the said retrenchment has been done in violation of the provisions of Section 25f of the Industrial disputes Act. Sri Gupta and Sri Rastogi, the learned counsel for the Board, have, however, submitted that the petitioners cannot invoke the protection of section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, since they are not workmen under section 2 (s) of the said Act. In view of the aforesaid submissions urged by the learned counsel, the question which needs to be determined is as to whether the petitioners fall within the ambit of the definition of "workman" as contained in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as under : "2 (s) "workman' means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, of as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge, or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person (i) who is subject to the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Air Force act, 1950 (45 of 1950) or the Navy (Discipline) Act. 1954 (34 of 1954) ; or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as as officer or other employee of a prison ; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity ; or (iv) who, being employed in supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature. ";