( 1. ) TWO matters are taken up together for disposal. The petitions are by the employer. M. P. Electricity Board, and respondents in the two petitions are employees/workmen. True, the main contention which counsel for the petitioner pressed in these two petitions relates to the status of the two respondents in each case contesting the position that M. P. Electricity Board and Ors. vs. Basant Kumar Pandey (02. 02. 1989 -MPHC) Page 2 of 5 they were not workmen, but apprentices. But, for reasons to follow, we propose to hold them not to be apprentices, as contended.

( 2. ) AWARDS have been passed separately in case of each of the respondent/workmen or employee, but the nature of relief granted to them is the same. Both of them have been reinstated in service and have been awarded back wages. We have taken the view in this matter that a part of the award would stand, while the other part of the award concerning back wages must go. This we say for the following reasons.

( 3. ) K. N. Gupta, who has appeared for the petitioners in both cases, laboured hard to convince us that to the both respondents the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961, are applicable and on that footing, counsel contended that the two respondents, Ramashankar Sharma and Basant Kumar should be deemed apprentices. However, for a single, singular and salutary reason, we hold that contention to be wholly meritless. We have looked at the main provision cited from the Apprentices Act, which we extract:

"18. 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 he 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".

We do not think if any argument is necessary to establish the legal position that for the application of the said Act, the necessary conditions enumerated in Sub-clause (a) aforequoted must be satisfied. Indeed, unless and until it is established in any particular case that the person sought to be labelled as an apprentice is undergoing, apprenticeship training in a designated trade in an establishment, there would be no scope for making any reference or placing any reliance on the provisions of the said Act. It has to be established by pleading and proof in any particular case that the person concerned was being given training in a designated trade and that term is defined in Section 2 (2) (e) which also we quote:

(e) designated trade means any trade or occupation or any subject field in engineering or technology which the entral Government, after consultation with the Central Apprenticeship Council, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify as a designated trade for the purposes of this Act. In the instant case, there is neither any pleading nor any proof of the feet that the establishment of the petitioner, namely, M. P. Electricity Board, has been notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette as designated trade for the purpose of the Apprentices Act, 1961. We do not think if we have to say anything more on this aspect of the contention raised by Shri Gupta and argued with great vehemence by him.

( 4. ) THE impugned award in both cases, in our view, is fully supported by the provisions of the Annexure to M. P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. The term permanent employees is defined in Clause 2 of the Annexure. Classification of employees of an industrial concern is made in Clause 2 of the Annexure and in sub-clauses (i) and (vi) respectively are defined terms permanent and temporary employee. This Court had an occasion recently to construe these provisions. The Division Bench of this Court construed the terms aforementioned in the State of M. P. v. Ram Prakash (1990-I-LLJ-551), to hold that dispute can be raised by an employee with regard to his dismissal if he is not treated as perman