Apprentices appointed under the Apprentices Act, 1961, are not workmen within the meaning of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, but apprentices appointed in the general sense of the term are workmen and their termination/retrenchment must follow the due process as prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act.

S. H. RAZA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners, who by means of Annexure-1 to the writ petition, were appointed as apprentices for undergoing training for a period of three years as contained in Annexure-2, have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the alleged termination or retrenchment of their services after the expiry of the said period. Sri S. S. Rawat, counsel for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners were not appointed as apprentices in accordance with provisions contained in Apprentice Act, 1961, and they were workmen within the meaning of word workmen as defined in Section 2 (z) of the U. P. Industrial-Disputes Act which reads as under:

"workman means any person including an apprentice employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person, who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-

(i) who is subject to the Army Act, 1950 or the Air Force Act, 1950, or the Navy (Discipline)Act, 1934; or (ii) who is employed in the Police Service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a Managerial nature.

( 2 ) SECTION 18 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 provides that the apprentices are trainees and not workers, save as otherwise provided in this Act (a) every apprentice undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated trade in an establishment shall be a trainee and not a worker and (b) the provisions of any law with respect to Labour shall not apply to or in relation to such apprentice.

( 3 ) APPARENTLY there appears to be a conflict between the provisions of Section 2 (z) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and Section 18 of the Apprentices Act. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Employees State Insurance Corporation v. The Tata Engineering and Locomotives Co. Ltd, : 1976 (1) LLJ 81 (SC) observed:

"the heart of the matter in apprenticeship is, therefore, the dominant object and intent to impart on the part of the employer and to accept on the part of the other person learning under certain agreed terms. That certain payment is made during the apprenticeship by whatever name called, and that the apprentice has to be under certain rules of discipline do not convert the apprentice to a regular employee under the employer. Such a person remains a learner and is not an employee. An examination of the provisions of the entire agreement leads us to the conclusion that the principal object with which the parties enter into an agreement of apprenticeship was offering by the employer opportunity to learn the trade or craft and the other person to acquire such theoretical or practical knowledge that may be obtained in the course of the training. This is the primary feature that is obvious in the agreement,"

( 4 ) AFTER referring to the definition of apprentice as contained in Apprentices Act, 1961 the supreme Court observed:

"even then the question is whether such an apprentice is an employee within the meaning of the term under Section 2 (9) of the Act. If the answer is yes, he will be governed by the Act and the appellants claim for charging the company with liability for payment of special contribution under Chapter V-A of the Act in respect of the apprentices will be justified. "

( 5 ) IN the said decision the Supreme Court has taken note of Section 13 of Appren