Judgment

SHELAT, J.:- Respondent No. 1 was, in 1955, admitted as a trade apprentice by the appellant-company in its works, the company agreeing to bear the costs of his training, as such apprentice, which it did for a period of 3 years. On completion of his training, he was appointed in September 1958 as a skilled workman, i.e., as a fitter. The letter of appointment under which he was engaged contained a clause which required him to execute a bond to serve the company for five years at least. The object of that clause evidently was to ensure that he served the company at least for five years in consideration of the company having borne the expenses of his training.

2. The evidence produced before the Industrial Tribunal shows that the practice of the company, set up at the instance of the Government of India and the Company s Board of Directors, was to have a confidential inquiry made to verify the antecedents of its employees. Such verification not being practicable at the time of the appointment of each employee, it used to be done after a workman was appointed. The object of such verification was to ascertain whether it was desirable or not in the interests of the company to cont