KARUNA SHANKAR TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who by means of Annexure-1 to the writ petition, were appointed as apprentices for undergoing training for a period of three years as contained in Annexure-2, have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the alleged termination or retrenchment of their services after the expiry of the said period. Sri S.S. Rawat, counsel for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners were not appointed as apprentices in accordance with provisions contained in Apprentice Act, 1961, and they were 'workmen' within the meaning of word 'workmen' as defined in Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial-Disputes Act which reads as under:

(2.) Section 18 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 provides that the 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 be a 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.

(3.) Apparently there appears to be a conflict between the provisions of Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and Section 18 of the Apprentices Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Employees State Insurance Corporation v. The Tata Engineering and Locomotives Co. Ltd, : 1976(1) LLJ 81 (SC) observed: