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 for one year, his services were thereafter engaged not as an Apprentice under the Apprentices Act and, therefore, it must be deemed that he was in some kind of employment and, therefore, termination of his services amounted to retrenchment under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court also held that the claim of the appellant that the termination of employment or engagement of service of respondent was in terms of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the provisions of the Central Industrial Disputes act would not be attracted inasmuch as there was no provision akin to in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court thus held that the termination of the services of the respondent is illegal and that he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. The award made by the Labour Court in the aforesaid manner was challenged in a writ petition before the High Court.

2. The High Court by an interim order made on 10.5.1994 directed that the respondent should be taken back to the post in which he as employed and he should be paid the current salary subject to the final ordersin the writ petition. Thereafter, the High Court upheld the award made by the Labour Court upheld the award made by the Labour Court and made it clear that the engagement of services of the respondent after 21.4.1989 not being as an Apprentice under the Apprentices Act, it must be held that he was employed on regular basis falling under the definition of workman under Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

3. On the application of the State Act or the Central Act to the case on hand, the High Court followed a Division Bench ruling in Jai Kishun v. U.P. Co-operative Bank Ltd.1 and made it plain that the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Central Industrial Disputes Act would not apply in respect of proceedings arising under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court also noticed the contrary view in this regard in the case of Smt. Pushpa Agrawal v. Regional Inspectress of Girls School, Meerut 2 but held that in Jai Kishun s case (supra). It is this judgment that is brought in appeal before us in these proceedings.

4. The definition of retrenchment under the State Act is identical to the one available in the Central Act prior to the amendment by Act, 49 of 1984. It is not in dispute that the law, as applicable then, would be applicable to the present case if the Central Act is not attracted.

5. The law is settled that under the Central Act every case of retrenchment would not include a case of contractual termination which came to be introduced under the Central Act by Amending Act 49 of 1984 which purports to exclude from the ambit of the definition of retrenchment , inter alia, : (i) termination of service of a workman as a result of the non-renewal of t