ORDER

The respondent was appointed as an Apprentice for one year on a monthly stipend of Rs. 300/- for getting traiing of General Clerk. His engagement was under the provisions of Apprentices Act for which a contract was also entered into between the parties on 29.1.1997. On completion of his training for a period of one year his engagement stood dis-continued. It is claimed that the respondent could not gain full knowledge during his training and, therefore, he requested for one more year of training under the appellant. At his behest, he was engaged for one more year as an Apprentice. When that period came to an end on 21.4.1989, it is stated that his engagement as Apprentice came to an end. The respondent, however, raised an industrial dispute which was referred an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court by the State Government under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The contention put forth on behalf of the appellant that the respondent is not an employee of the appellant and there was no relationship of master and servant between them was not accepted by the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that though the respondent was initially appointed as Apprentice f