R. K. Agrawal, J.—By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Rama Kant Dwivedi seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and to quash the award dated 26th February, 1998, passed by the Industrial Tribunal (I), U.P., Allahabad, respondent No. 1, said to have been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28th August, 1998, filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, and other consequential reliefs.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :

The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Stenographer in the establishment of the G.E.C. Alsthom India Limited, Naini, Allahabad, respondent No. 2, on 22nd March, 1992. His services came to be terminated vide letter dated 9th May, 1995, with effect from 13th May, 1995. According to him, one Arshad Ali was appointed as a Welder (Trainee) by the respondent No. 2 whose services were also terminated on 20th December, 1994. Arshad Ali raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad, respondent No. 1, and registered as Adjudication Case No. 93 of 1994. The petitioner also raised an industrial dispute which has been referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad and registered as Adjudication Case No. 57 of 1996. Before the Industrial Tribunal, both the parties filed the written statement. Documentary evidence was also filed by the parties. The Industrial Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence and material on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was appointed as a trainee and he did not come within the purview of ‘workman’ and, therefore, the provisions of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) are not applicable and the retrenchment is not illegal. However, in the case of Arshad Ali, the Tribunal had held the termination to be illegal and had directed for reinstatement with all consequential benefits which has been upheld by this Court.

3. I have heard Sri Suresh Singh, learned counsel holding the brief of Sri Sanjay Sharma, on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri V. R. Agrawal, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Vivek Ratan, on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though in the appointment letter the respondent No. 2 had mentioned the appointment of the petitioner as a Trainee but the nature of work which the petitioner was required to do, clearly made him fall under the category of the workman and, therefore, the provision of the Act was applicable. He further submitted that the petitioner was covered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, as also under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, as the amount of his contribution towards the Employees State Insurance and the Provident Fund was being deducted by the respondent No. 2. He submitted that the nature of employment of a person is the determinative factor for considering as to whether such a person is a workman or not and mere label or wording in the appointment letter issued by the employer would not have any effect. In support thereof, he relied upon the following decisions :

(i) Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra and others, AIR 1957 SC 264 ;

(ii) Workmen of the Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Food Corporation of India, AIR 1985 SC 670 ;

(iii) S. K. Maini v. M/s. Carona Sahu Company Limited and others, AIR 1994 SC 1824 ; and

(iv) M/s. Reptakos Brett and Co. v. Labour Court (Vth), Kanpur, and others, 1999 (81) FLR 222.

5. He further submitted that even an apprentice is covered under the provisions of the ‘workman’, as defined in the Act and, therefore, the provisions of Section 6N of the Act ought to have been complied with before retrenching the petitioner. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions :

(i