DEEPA SHARMA, J.

1. Vide the present writ petition, the petitioner-workman has challenged the award dated 23.04.2001, whereby the learned Labour Court has held that the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ID Act’), hence not entitled to any relief.

2. The petitioner had set out a case before the Labour Court, wherein in his Statement of Claim he had alleged that he was employed with the Management since 01.06.1983 and from the very beginning, he had been working as full time Grainer, yet in the appointment letter he was shown as a trainee. He had further claimed that at the time of his appointment with the Management, he had produced experience certificates of various other establishments where he was employed earlier and since he had already taken the training before he joined the Management, the question of his taking the training from the Management did not arise. It is also claimed that the Management as per his practice used to show its regular employees as trainees. His claim was that he could not report for his duty from 11.06.1986 to 17.06.1986 due to his illness and on his r