1. Heard Mr. K.M. Patel, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent.

2. In present petition the petitioner has prayed, inter alia that:-

“5(a) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 3.8.2002 passed by the Labour Court in T-Application No. 388/1998 at Annexure-G, the judgment and order dated 20.7.2004 passed by the Industrial Court in Appeal (IC) No. 112/2002 at Annexure-H; and the judgment and order dated 24.1.2008 of the Industrial Court passed in Review Application No. 13/2004 at Annexure-J”

3. So far as factual backdrop is concerned it has emerged from the record that the petitioner company engaged present respondent in January 1998. The petitioner company styled the respondent and his appointment as appointment of the respondent as “Trainee”. The appointment order dated 29.1.1998 described the respondent as “trainee”.

3.1 The appointment order specified that the respondent was engaged for period of three months as trainee and that he shall be paid Rs.80/- per day.

3.2 The company terminated service of the respondent, about 7 months after he was appointed in January 1998, vide order dated 24.8.1998.

3.3 In the said order the company mentioned that the respondent's service was terminated on account of his “unsatisfactory performance”.

3.4 Feeling aggrieved by the said order the respondent approached Labour Court and filed application challenging termination of his service. The application was registered as T-Application No. 388 of 1988. After completion of the pleadings Labour Court received and recorded evidence form both sides and when the parties to the proceedings closed their evidence, Labour Court heard rival submissions.

3.5 Thereafter Labour Court allowed said application vide order dated 24.8.1998 with direction to the company to reinstate present respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “claimant”) and to pay him 50% backwages.

3.6 Feeling aggrieved by the said decision the company filed appeal before Industrial Court. Learned appellate Court heard the appeal and vide order decision dated 20.7.2004 Industrial Court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the decision dated 3.8.2002 passed by Labour Court.

3.7 After Industrial Court decided the appeal the company filed application seeking review of the decision dated 20.7.2004. Learned Industrial Court heard the review application. After considering rival submission, learned Industrial Court rejected the said review application vide order dated 24.1.2008, for the reasons mentioned in the said order.

4. Before Labour Court and before Industrial Court the company claimed that the applicant was engaged as trainee and that therefore he cannot be and should not be considered “employee” within the meaning of said term defined under Section 2(3) of the Bombay Industrial Relation Act. The company also claimed that the claimant was engaged as trainee for period of 3 months but the period was extended at the request of the claimant. It was also claimed that the performance o the claimant was not even satisfactory and despite verbal warning (office memo dated 17.8.1988 annexure E Colly page 79) the claimant did not improve his performance. It is mentioned in the order dated 24.8.1998 that the claimant's performance was not found satisfactory.

4.1 The claimant on the other hand submitted that he was employee of the company and he was engaged as such. He also claimed that actually he was appointed and engaged as R.O. Plant Operator. He denied that he had requested the company to extend the period of trainee. He denied that he was engaged as trainee and that his performance was not satisfactory.

4.2 For the reasons recorded in the orders learned Labour Court and learned Industrial Court did not accept the claim of the company. Both, the learned Labour Court and learned Industrial Court believed and accepte