BHASKARAN Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners entered into a contract of apprenticeship with the first respondent, the Kerala State Electricity Board. When they were undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of the said contract of apprenticeship, their services were terminated by the first respondent by Ext. P7 order. The petitioners challenge the said termination in this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge before whom the matter came up for consideration felt that this case involves consideration of important questions of law and has therefore referred the matter to the Division Bench.

(2.) Before adverting to the principal contentions urged by Sri. M.M. Cheriyan, learned counsel for the petitioners, we would like to advert to the admitted facts. The admitted facts are: The petitioners entered into a contract of apprenticeship with the first respondent for undergoing training and that in pursuance of the said contract they were undergoing such training. The contract of Apprenticeship executed by the petitioners was not got registered from the Apprenticeship Adviser as required by sub-s.(4) of S.4 of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). When the services of the petitioners were terminated, the provisions of S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with.

(3.) It was contended by Sri. M.M. Cheriyan, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were workmen within the meaning of that term under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that consequently the 1st respondent could not have terminated the petitioners' services without complying with the provisions of S.25F of that enactment. The argument is made by the respondent by relying on S.18 of the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the provisions of S.18 of the Act cannot be invoked by the first respondent in the present case since the contract of apprenticeship executed by the petitioners has not been got registered as required by sub-s.(4) of S.4 of the Act. It was submitted by Sri. Cheriyan that unless the conditions specified in S.18 of the Act are satisfied, the first respondent would not be entitled to take the stand that the provisions of S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act will not be attracted to the facts of the case.