Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—The petitioner is a body corporate created under Section 80 of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975.

2. Admittedly, name of Arvind Kumar son of Ramnarain, respondent No. 2 herein (hereinafter to called as respondent) was sent by I.T.I. Kanpur to the petitioner for giving him appointment as an apprentice. The respondent according to his own showing was appointed as apprentice. There is a dispute with regard to apprenticeship period. It was one year according to the respondent, but was two years according to the petitioner. The period commenced on 16th of March, 1994, which ended on 15th of March, 1996 as per the petitioner’s case.

3. The following industrial dispute was referred by the State Government under the provisions of Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act :

Whether the services of workman Sri Arvind Kumar son of Sri Roopnarain Plumber was rightly and legally terminated on 29th of March, 1996? If it was not so, to what relief the workman is entitled?

4. The respondent in his written statement before the Industrial Tribunal stated that he was appointed as plumber for one year in the Meter Section as an apprentice by the order dated 7th of March, 1994 and he worked from 16th of March, 1994 to 28th of March, 1999 and was paid salary. But when he demanded the pay scale of plumber, he was put off from duties on 29th of March, 1996. The vacancy has been filled up by making fresh appointments. The order dated 29th of March, 1996 is bad as no notice of termination of employment was given nor any amount in lieu thereof was paid. He was not paid even the retrenchment compensation.

5. The petitioner in its written statement came out with the case that the respondent was appointed as an apprentice for a period of two years. The petitioner is not his employer nor the provisions of labour laws including the Industrial Disputes Act are attracted. The respondent does not come within the definition of “workman” as per Section 2(S) and 2 (Z) of Central and U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has no status of workman as per the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and no question of his termination, discharge, dismissal, retrenchment from service arises. In addition, it was also pleaded that the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Sri M.P. Singh who made the reference was not competent to make it. Reference could only be made by the State Government Secretary or Deputy Secretary to the State Government.

6. A reply to the written statement of the petitioner was filed by the respondent wherein he reiterated that he was engaged as apprentice though for a period of one year. He has been working since then. After the expiry of the apprenticeship period, he has got the status of workman and as such the provisions of Sections 6N, 6P, 6Q of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act are applicable.

7. The parties led evidence oral and documentary in support of their respective cases.

8. Noticeably, the Industrial Tribunal conveniently refused to decide the legal pleas raised by the petitioner on short ground that those pleas were not substantiated before it. It proceeded to deliver the award on the footing that the respondent was engaged as an apprentice for a period of two years instead of three years as provided under the Apprenticeship Act, 1962 and worked up to 28th of March, 1996. Thus, having completed 240 days in a year, he could not be disengaged without giving a notice or wages in lieu of notice. That having not been done, the petitioner has violated the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the respondent is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of services w.e.f. 29th of March, 1996 and consequently it ordered to pay him salary of plumber from the date of award.

9. Sri R.M. Saggi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent was indisputably posted as an apprentice plumber for a period of two years, he cannot be treated as a workman after the ex