The main legal point established was the significance of the terms and conditions of the training offer and the applicability of Certified Standing Orders in determining the nature of employment and the existence of an industrial dispute.

K.R. Shriram, J.

1. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. The petitioner initially was appointed for a fixed period of six months from 1st December 2010 to 31st May 2011 by respondent no.4 purely on temporary basis. Thereafter, on an application made by the petitioner, respondent no.4 offered to impart training to the petitioner.

3. The training was to be in two parts, the first part for six months and the second part was for a period of five months. The petitioner would have become eligible for the second part of the training only if he had completed successfully the first part of training. For the training period, the petitioner was entitled to a consolidated stipend. The terms and conditions are reflected in a letter dated 2nd July 2011 and letter dated 1st December 2011.

Clauses 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21 in the letter dated 2nd July 2011 read as under:

9) You will sincerely and diligently undergo the training in all areas in the Company, both on the job and external training, if any. Your performance will be regularly assessed and evaluated and feedback will be given to you for needed improvement.

10) This is only a training offer based on the VWIPL Technician Development Scheme and doesn't give you a right to hold a lien for an employment in the Company.

11) If vacancy exists then on satisfactory completion of the second part under VWIPLTDS or extended period thereof, you may be considered for regular employment in the Company on probation. The decision of the management on this will be final and binding.

14. You will be required to work in shifts.

17. You have been offered training based on certain qualifications fixed by the management and in case you acquire any additional qualification, there is no commitment or assurance on the part of the management to upgrade your training and /or to give you higher emoluments.

19. As discussed you shall join us for training on June 1, 2011. In case you don't join on June, 1, 2011 this offer under VWIPLTDS shall be considered as withdrawn.

20. We do hope that you will utilize this opportunity to the best of your & the Company's advantage.

21. During your training, you will not be a workman and there shall be no employer-employee relationship between you and our Management. The relationship will be that of an institute-pupil.

4. Therefore, it is quite clear from this letter that the petitioner was made aware, knew and accepted that he was being taken in by respondent no.4 purely as a trainee. The petitioner also knew and accepted that the training included on the job and external training and also that during the training period he will not be a workman and there shall be no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and respondent no.4. The petitioner also knew that if the vacancy exists and on his satisfactorily completing the second part of the training period, the petitioner may be considered for regular employment in respondent no.2 on probation.

5. Upon the end of the training period, the petitioner was not considered to have satisfactorily completed the second part and was not given employment and the petitioner was told to stop reporting in the factory of respondent no.4. It is the case of the petitioner that the work that he performed during the training period was similar to the work that he performed when he was temporary employee and the respondent no.4 has been doing this to about 500 employees under the garb of training. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was made to work at the production activity/manufacturing activities on the shop floor of the Company for more than 12 hours or more in the manner of extracting work whereas in effect, the petitioner was working as a workman. The petitioner also has alleged that the respondent no.4 has been paying a stipend and there are more than 500 employees identically situated who have been demanding regularization/permanency and other benefits available under the Labour and Industrial Law from