Apprentices under the Apprentices Act are not workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act.

1. :- These three writ petitions raise common questions for consideration and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.

2. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board, respondent in these writ petitions (here in after referred to as 'the Board') is a State Electricity Board constituted under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply,) Act, 1948. Section II of the Apprentices Act, 1961 (here in after referred to as 'the Apprentices Act') imposes an obligation on every employer to engage apprentices and to provide training to them in his trade in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made there under. In pursuance of the said obligation, the Board has been engaging trade apprentices for imparting training in various trades. The Board issued an advertisement in the year 1977 inviting applications for apprenticeship training and in response to the said advertisement the petitioners submitted their applications and they were selected. Thereafter the petitioners were engaged as trade apprentices in different trades in January/February, 1978 and the period of training was three-the years and in the first years of training they were to be paid Rs. 130/- per month, in the second year, they were to be paid Rs. 140/- per month and in the third year they were to be paid Rs. 150/- per month. The petitioners-were also required to sign a contract of Apprenticeship and each of them signed the said contract. In the contract it was provided that it shall not be obligatory on the part of the Board to offer any employment to the apprentice on completion of the period of his apprenticeship training in its establishment nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to accept an employment under the employer. Under the Apprentices Act and the Apprentices Rules, 1963 framed under the Apprentices Act (here in after referred to as 'the Apprentices Rules'), an apprentice is required to pass the test conducted by the National Council for Training in Vocational Trades. Although the three years apprenticeship training period of the petitioners expired in January/February, 1981, they were continued as apprentice trainees beyond that period because the All India Trade Test was delayed and was held in April, 1981. The result of the said test was declared on 23rd June, 1981. Thereafter an order dated 9th July, 1981 was passed by the Asstt. Engineer of the Board whereby the services of Brij Mohan (petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 1178 of 1981) and Vijendra (petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 1177 of 1981) were discontinued with effect from 9th July, 1981. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 9th July, 1981, the said petitioners have filed Writ Petitions Nos. 1178 and 1177 respectively. In so far as Hanuman Prasad Choudhary and Prem Narain (petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 722 of 1981) are concerned, the said petitioners approached this court on 30th April, 1981 with the allegation that although they had not been served with the order terminating their services, but the Board was likely to consider that the said petitioners are deemed to be relieved from service from 30th April, 1981 and the said petitioners have prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued restraining the Board from terminating the services of the petitioners as trade apprentices and that the Board may be directed to fix the petitioners in the regular pay scale No. 2 with effect from the date on which they successfully qualified the prescribed test. These writ petitions have been contested by the Board and the Board has filed a reply to the same.

3. The first contention that has been urged by Shri Kuhad, the learned counsel for the petitioners in all these writ petitions, was that the petitioners were workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here in after referred to as 'the Industrial Disputes Act') and that they are entitled to the protection of the said Act. Shri Kuhad