ORDER :

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.

Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, hence with the consent of counsel for the parties the matters are taken up for final disposal and all these petitions are decided by this common order.

2. Counsel for the petitioner/Corporation submits that the respondents were never engaged as workmen rather they were engaged as 'apprentice' and a contract of apprenticeship was executed between the parties for 11 months and during these 11 months apprenticeship training was provided to the respondents and after completion of the said period the agreement came to an end. Counsel submits that the respondents do not fall within the definition of workmen, hence the Labour Court was not having any jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition filed by the respondents. Counsel submits that as per section 18 of the APPRENTICES ACT , 1961 the provisions of labour law are not applicable. Counsel submits that several documents were submitted on the record before the Industrial Tribunal to show that the respondents were engaged as apprentice and after completion of their term of 11 months, the contract came to an end. Counsel submits that the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner Corporation was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal and the impugned award has been passed directing the petitioner to reinstate back the respondents in service with continuity and 50% back wages. Counsel submits that once this fact was established on the record by the Tribunal that the respondents were not engaged as workmen then there was no occasion or reason available with the Tribunal to treat them as workmen, hence under these circumstances the Tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned award. In support of her contentions, she has placed reliance upon the following judgments:

1. Hanuman Prasad Choudhary and Ors. v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Ors. reported in 1985 (2) WLN 219.

2. U.P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh Ors. reported in 2004 (8) SCC 402.

3. U.P.S.E.B. v. Presiding Officer , Kanpur and Ors. reported in 2018(1) LLN 314 (All).

3. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted and the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents workmen opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner Corporation and submitted that the respondents have established the fact that their services were taken by petitioner as petrol filler and they were discharging the duties of workmen. Counsel submits that unfair practice was used by the petitioner Corporation for taking an agreement of apprentice from the respondents. Counsel submits that no training was provided to the respondents and straightaway all works were taken from them which comes within the purview of definition of workmen, hence the industrial Tribunal has not committed any error by treating the status of the respondents as workmen and the Tribunal has not committed any error in entertaining the claim petition filed by them. Counsel submits that finding of fact has been recorded by the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence available on the record. Counsel submits that by exercising t