The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusion of apprentices from existing labor laws under the Apprentices Act, 1961 and the requirement of notification for the Act's applicability and the designated trades.

1. These O.Ps. have been referred by a learned judge of this Court to be heard by a Division Bench. The question involved in these petitions is the same and hence are being disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioners in O.P. Nos. 7754, 7962, 8487 and 9092 of 1982 are attached to the Keltron (Controls) while the petitioners in O.P. Nos. 7287 and 9287 of 1982 are attached to the Kerala Livestock Development and Milk Marketing Board Limited, for short, MILMA. The petitioners were appointed as apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961. The petitions have been filed for a declaration that the petitioners are workmen entitled f or the protection of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the I. D. Act. for the issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioners without following the procedure laid down in the I. D. Act and for other reliefs. Respondents in the petitions are respectively the Keltron and the Milma.

2. The petitioners were offered one year apprenticeship in the trade of Clerk (General) under the Apprentices Act, 1961, for short the Act, with the respondents. They were to be paid per month Rs. 250/-during the period of apprenticeship training. The petitioners attached to the Keltron continued even after the completion of the contract period at their request since they could not complete full training during the apprenticeship period. Before the expiry of the extended period, they approached this court with these petitions and are now continuing on the strength of interim stay orders passed by this court. The apprentices attached to the Milma approached the court before the expiry of the original period itself and are continuing on the strength of similar interim orders passed by this court.

3. The petitioner's case is that though their trade name is Clerks (General), the Act will not apply to them because the necessary notification making the Act applicable to Clerks (General) attached to the Keltron and Milma has not been published. The notifications issued are in respect of the trade Clerks (General) attached to the establishments within the scope of which Keltron and Milma will not come. According to them, they are workmen as defined in S.2 (s) of the I.D. Act which takes in apprentices also. Keltron and Milma come within the definition of 'industry' as defined under S.20) of the said Act. Thus they are entitled to the benefits of Chapter V-A of the I.D. Act. It was apprehending termination of their services except in accordance with the provisions of the said Act that they were compelled to move this court for the prayers made.

4. These averments are countered in the counter-affidavit filed in O.P. No. 7754 of 1982 which among other things states as follows: The petitioners are apprentice trainees coming within the Act. They were sponsored as per instructions issued by the Assistant Apprenticeship Adviser as per his letter dated 13-5-1981. They executed agreements as provided for in the Act and Rules. They were continuing after the expiry of the period of apprenticeship as requested by them to complete the full training. They are neither workmen as defined in the I.D. Act nor are they governed by any of the provisions of the said Act. The petitioners come under the designated trade of Clerks (General) and are governed strictly by the Act. Under S.18(b) of the Act the provisions of any law with respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to the apprentices.

5. This court had occasion to consider the case of provisional employees in various departments in a Full Bench decision reported in Umayammal v. State of Kerala (1982 KLT. 829). The question whether the petitioners will get the benefit of this judgment need not detain us because the question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioners are governed by the Apprentices Act or not. If the answer to this question is in the affi