SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.N. Dixit, Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2.

2. The petitioners have challenged the Award dated 27.04.2016 passed by the respondent No. 1 by which the reference made by the Government vide its order dated 05.11.2009 in Adjudication Case No. 103 of 2009 has been decided in favour of respondent No. 2. The reference as made by the Government was worded in the following manner:-

“Whether the workmen Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra S/o Sri Rameshwar Prasad Mishra designation- Pump Operator has been usually terminated on 11.11.2006 by his employers, Executive Officer Nagar Palika Parishad, Raibareli and the Water Works Engineer, Nagar Palika Parishak, Raibareli and to what benefits such workmen is entitled?”

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.2 had filed Reference Case No.22 of 2007 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, claiming himself to be a daily wage employee of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Raebareli and praying for setting aside the alleged illegal termination order dated 01.11.2006. After reference was made the adjudication case was transfered to Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow.

4. In the written statement, the respondent No. 2 had alleged himself to be working continuously under the petitioners and being paid salary of Rs.940/- per-month w.e.f 01.11.2005 upto 10.11.2006 and all of sudden being terminated on 11.11.2006 without following the procedure required for retrenchment as provided under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, hence his termination was bad and the same be set aside. He claimed to have rendered more than 240 days of service in a calender year and that without being paid retrenchment compensation, his services could not have been legally dispensed with.

5. In the written statement/reply submitted by the petitioners they denied the claim of the respondent No. 2, saying that he was never appointed as an employee or a daily wager in the Nagar Palika Parishad. He was appointed as an apprentice in the Water Works Department in the Nagar Palika Parishad w.e.f. 01.11.2005 upto 01.11.2006. He joined as an apprentice and his joining report has been filed as Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition. It was also submitted before the respondent No.1 that initially the respondent No.2 had filed Writ Petition No.8936 (S/S) of 2006 before this Court and made a prayer to issue a mandamus to the respondents of the said petition to let him complete his apprenticeship. The said writ petition was dismissed on 18.10.2006 as not maintainable, as the respondent No.2 had already filed a complaint before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raibareli which was pending and simultaneous remedies could not be permitted to be awarded by the petitioner.

6. The Assistant Labour Commissioner decided the Reference no. 30 of 2008 by his Award dated 07.10.2011 and directed back wages to be paid to the respondent No. 2 against which order, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 4892 (MS) of 2012 which is still pending before this Court.

7. It had also been submitted before the Tribunal that in terms of an agreement entered into between the parties before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, he was allowed to complete his apprenticeship and contract of his engagement having been completed, there was no reason for the employer to continue with his services any further. On termination of contract of apprenticeship the disengagement of the respondent No.2 was automatic and there was no illegal termination as alleged.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has read out the findings recorded by the respondent No. 1, on the submissions made by the employers before it from paragraph-8 onwards of the Award. The respondent No. 1 had framed the points of determination correctly as to whether the respondent No. 2 was indeed engaged as Apprentice in Nagar Palika Parishad, Raibareli but thereafter, had given findings which was completely