- (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the Corporation challenging the award of the Labour Court dated February 4, 1995 and its Notification dated June 30, 1995 contained in Annexure 9 to this petition.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition, as alleged by the petitioner, are that respondent-apprentice had executed an agreement under the provisions of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 on November 25, 1987, contained in Annexure 1 to the petition, alongwith petitioner Corporation. Clause (2) of the said agreement provided for extending the. period of one year training if it is not completed within one year. In the instant case as the apprentice-respondent could not complete the training within one year, his period of training was extended upto April 30, 1989 by passing, order dated December 30, 1988 (Annexure 6 ). On completion of the training, his apprenticeship came to an end on February 28, 1989 and was relieved on March 2, 1989. Apprentice-respondent raised a dispute alleging that he was neither an apprentice nor he entered into any agreement. He was workman from the initial appointment and his retrenchment order dated February 28, 1989, contained in. Annexure 7, is bad as his services had been terminated without complying with the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as "the I. D. Act" ).
(3.) A reference under Section 10 of the I. D. Act was made as to whether the termination of service of respondent-workman w. e. f. March 2, 1989 was valid? Petitioner had contested the case before the Labour Court and it was asserted therein that the respondent-workman was given apprenticeship as per the contract dated November 25, 1987 (Annexure 1) on certain conditions contained in the said contract. It provided that the Corporation is not responsible for his employment and if his work or conduct was not found satisfactory then he can be removed without any notice. Petitioner had filed documents before the Labour Court to the effect that as respondent-workman could not complete the training within the stipulated period of one year, his training was extended as per Clause (2) of the contract and when he completed his training, he was discharged from there, therefore, the question to treat him as a workman did not arise.;