The central legal point established in the judgment is the non-applicability of labour laws to apprentices under the Act of 1961, which prevails over the Act of 1947 in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Usha Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents workmen.

2. The present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India assails the reference made to the Labour Court-I, Kanpur and being registered as Adjudication Case No.46 of 1994 and the award dated 20/25.07.1995, received on 30.08.1995.

3. Petitioners before this Court are the electricity department, supplying the electricity within the district Kanpur. Respondent no. 4 was engaged as a Trade Apprentice in the trade of Clerk (General) for one year w.e.f. 01.07.1983 to 31.06.1984. Respondent no. 5 was engaged as Trade Apprentice in the trade of Clerk (Commercial) for a period 19.10.1984 to 18.10.1985, under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act of 1961’). An industrial dispute was raised on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5 through respondent no. 3 U.P. Bijli Karmchari Sangh.

4. The State Government referred the matter exercising power under Section 4 (k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act of 1947’) to the Labour Court, Kanpur as to whether the termination of services by the petitioners employer was lawful or not. By the award dated 20/25.07.1995 the Labour Court held the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to be the workmen of the petitioners and without following the due procedure as envisaged under the Act of 1947 their services were wrongly terminated. The award provided for the reinstatement of both the respondent nos. 4 and 5 from the date of award and also provided for the payment of the amount from 01.07.1992 till the date of award, the period during which the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were out of employment. Hence, this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the engagement of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 was under the Act of 1961 and cannot be considered as an workmen, as Section 2 (aa) read with Section 2 (aaa) defines apprentice and apprenticeship training. Section 2 (r) further defines a ‘worker’ which does not include an apprentice. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the engagement of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 was as an apprentice with the petitioners and not as a workmen. The Labour Court had wrongly arrived at finding that as apprenticeship contract was registered after five years, they cannot be considered as apprentice and are liable to be treated as a workmen.

6. She further contended that the Director (Works) ITI Kanpur, who had deposed before the Labour Court as EW-2, had categorically submitted that both the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were the Trade Apprentice registered in the documents but their bond form was not available. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of Apex Court in case of U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Shiv Mohan Singh and another, (2004) 8 SCC 402, wherein the controversy as to the applicability of the labour laws in case of an apprentice has been clarified and has been held that both the Act of 1961 and the Act of 1947 operate in different field.

7. Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents workmen, submitted that Sub-section 4 of Section 4 of the Act of 1961 mandates that contract of apprenticeship which has been entered has to be sent to the Apprenticeship Advisor for registration. In the present case no such form was sent for registration, nor the initial appointment which was for a fixed term, was under the Act of 1961. According to him, the procedure envisaged under Section 6-N of the Act of 1947 was not followed by the employer/petitioners before terminating the services of the respondents workmen and the Labour Court had correctly arrived at the finding.

8. He then contended that the statement made by the Director (Works) ITI Kanpur clearly establishes that the contract form was registered in the year 1989 though the workmen as according to the petitioners was between the period 1983-84 and 1984-85.

9.