( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India though styled as one under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution, at the instance of the Gujarat Electricity Board, challenging the judgement and award passed by the Labour Court, Kalol in Reference (LCK) No. 22/86.

( 2 ) I am conscious of the limitations of this court while dealing with petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein findings of fact recorded by the lower courts on the basis of appreciation of evidence on record cannot lightly be interfered with. However, as I shall discuss hereinafter, there is no serious controversy as to the facts established on record, but the Labour Court has in interpreting the facts, added its own grossly exaggerated twist arising from its own compassionate view in the matter which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. In my view, therefore, the impugned award requires to be interfered with.

( 3 ) THE respondent worked with the petitioner for two different periods and in two different capacities, as will be discussed hereinafter. There is no controversy that these two periods when he put in service were distinctly different and not contiguous to each other and that he had worked on different posts, in different capacities, during each of these periods. Nevertheless the Labour Court merely out of sympathetic considerations has clubbed the said two periods together with a view to create a more apparently reasonable case for the respondent.

( 4 ) THE respondent was first engaged by order dated 30th July 1979 as a work-charge labourer, on a purely temporary basis and on a purely temporary post for a specific period of not exceeding 119 days. There cannot be any controversy on this fact in view of the appointment order at Exh. 22 on record. Obviously this was a tenure appointment, on a temporary post, and when this tenure expired, the respondent was relieved on 29th November 1979. Obviously, therefore, this cannot give rise to any grievance on the part of the respondent, and this period of a specific tenure appointment for a temporary purpose and on a temporary post cannot be clubbed with any other appointment in any other capacity.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner and the respondent being in agreement, the respondent was appointed as an Apprentice Trainee for training under the Apprentices Act, 1961, for the purpose of undergoing training as Apprentice Lineman. In this context the letter of appointment dated 19th February 1981 at Exh. 23 specifically makes it clear that the respondent was selected as Full Term Apprentice for training in the trade of Apprentice Lineman for a period of three years on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said letter. 5. 1 condition No. 2 of the said letter of appointment specifically mentions that the engagement of the respondent as an Apprentice in the trade of Apprentice Lineman is subject to registration of the contract by the Apprenticeship Adviser and subject to medical fitness as prescribed by the Act. Condition no. 6 also specifies that the respondent shall have to execute a contract in the Model Contract Form to undergo apprenticeship training for a period of 3 years from the date of joining and that the respondent will be governed by the terms and conditions of the contract so executed.

( 6 ) THERE is no dispute on the fact that the respondent was appointed on 19th February 1981 as per Exh. 23, and that the respondent had in fact executed the Apprenticeship Contract with the petitioner as per Model Contract Form. It is important to note that once such a contract is executed, the parties would be governed by a specific relationship created by the contract, subject always to the operation of the Apprentices Act, 1961. 6. 1 however, as it transpired, when the said contract was sent for registration as required under the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961, the Director of Employment and Training returned the said contract by communicati