( 1 ) THE petitioner, namely, National Dairy Development Board has filed this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad on 29. 09. 1987 in Complaint (IT) No. 30 of 1980 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay compensation in lieu of reinstatement amounting to 60 months wages to the respondent and the wages for this period were directed to be determined on the basis that the respondents basic pay was Rs. 500/- per month.

( 2 ) THE petition was admitted and rule was issued on 17. 04. 1989 and interim relief in terms of para 10 (II) of the petition was granted whereby the operation of the impugned award was stayed by this Court.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was appointed as an Apprentice by letter dated 13/16. 01. 1978. The respondent was offered an appointment as apprentice for a period of 1 and years initially from the date of joining subject to other conditions specified therein. It is also the case of the petitioner that the language employed in describing the period of training makes it clear that the period of 1 and year was not an outer limit or exhaustive period of training, but was subject to further extension if need be. It is for this reason the word initially was employed after the words of the period of training of one and half year. As per the said letter of appointment, the respondent resumed training as an apprentice in System Analysis and Computer Programming. The initial period of training of 1 and year expired on 31. 07. 1979. Since during the initial period of training, the performance of the respondent was not satisfactory and upto the mark, the petitioner vide order dated 31. 07. 1979 extended the period of training for a further period of three months so as to enable the respondent to improve his performance. During the entire period of training including the extended period of three months, it was found that the respondent did not learn the trade perfectly and that his performance during the training period was not up to the mark. Therefore, the petitioner did not think it fit and proper to offer an employment to the respondent and hence, vide an order dated 29. 10. 1979, the petitioner relieved the respondent from training with effect from 30. 10. 1979. It was simply a formal relieving order since the apprenticeship of the respondent was coming to an end on 30. 10. 1979 by efflux of time.

( 4 ) IT is also the case of the petitioner that at the time when the relieving order dated 29. 10. 1979 was issued to the respondent, a charter of demand was pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal for wage revision and other conditions of service. It was the subject matter of Reference (IT) No. 233/79. The respondent thereafter filed a Complaint No. (IT) 30/80 in the said reference purporting to be under Section 33a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 alleging the breach of Section 33 and praying for reinstatement in service with full back wages. The present petitioner filed a detailed statement of defence in the said complaint raising several issues and objected to the said complaint. The parties have led their oral evidence in the said complaint and after considering the pleadings of the parties and after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the Tribunal, the Tribunal pronounced the award on 29. 09. 1987 holding that the respondent was a workman because there was no provision for extension of period of training either in the letter of appointment or in the agreement and, therefore, the respondent is deemed to have been confirmed on the regular basis after the training period of 1 and year. After reaching the conclusion that the respondent had thus become workman automatically, the Tribunal negatived the contention about the jurisdiction and maintainability of the complaint under Sec. 33a of the Industrial Disputes Act