ORDER :

1. The petitioner has assailed the award dated 30.1.2019 passed by the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (Labour Court) in I.D.Nos.14/2017 to 30/2017: 32/2017 to 65/2017 and 67/2017 to 72/2017 whereby the Labour Court has allowed the Industrial Disputes raised by the respondent-workmen directing the petitioner/ Management to reinstate all the workmen to their original posts with continuity of service along with backwages from the date of their termination till the date of reinstatement with all other consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner claims to be a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the activity of manufacture of pharmaceutical medicines. The respondents/workmen were working in the establishment of the petitioner-management and they individually filed claim petitions under Section 10 (4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with Amendment Act, 1988 (Karnataka) contending that they were terminated from service without any valid reasons and sought for reinstatement with backwages and consequential benefits. Labour Court after analyzing the material evidence allowed the claim petitions as aforesaid. Being aggrieved, the Management is before this Court.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri S.S.Naganand, representing the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court failed to appreciate the vital aspect in as much as the relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and trainees-respondents visàvis the definition of ‘workman’ under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the finding of the Labour Court regarding the ‘trainees’ is not in consonance with Section 2(s) of the Act more particularly in the context of the certified standing orders of the company contemplating the appointment of trainees for a specific period. It was submitted that before issuing an appointment order, an offer was made to the respondents for a fixed term of 36 months as trainee – production. Thereafter appointment orders were issued appointing them as traineeproduction for a period of 36 months on a basic stipend. Clause 18 of the appointment order pertains to the period of training, Clause 20 pertains to the notice period. The respondenttrainees have accepted the same and given an undertaking to abide by the rules and regulations. There is no bar to extend additional benefits to the trainees, merely for the reason that the respondentsworkmen were engaged for more than 36 months and the additional benefits extended if any, would not create a status of regular workman. The Labour Court proceeded to accept the arguments of the respondents inasmuch as the action of the Management terminating the respondents as unfair labour practice and victimization. The direction issued by the Labour Court to reinstate the respondentstrainees with backwages and continuity of service is not justifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Sri T.C.Anantharam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents workmen submitted that the certified standing orders of the petitionercompany is not in conformity with the model standing orders. The certified standing order has to be strictly in conformity with the model standing orders, since the “trainee” is not included in the model standing orders, the inclusion of ‘trainee’ in the categories of workman defined in the certified standing order is illegal. Indeed, the trainees had earlier worked with the petitioner on contract basis for several years and thereafter they were engaged as trainees on a fixed term. As such, they come within the ambit of “workman” as defined under the provisions of the Act. The trainees being treated on par with the regular employees regarding the pay slips issued and certain benefits extended like wage increase, over time benefits and bonus etc., termination of the respondents amounts to ‘retrenchment’ attracting the