STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this matter is taken on board for final disposal.

(2.) Heard Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, and Mr. Ravinder Rana, Advocate for caveator-respondent No.1. The challenge in this petition filed by the State of Haryana is to the award dated 07.12.2012 (P-9) by which the respondent-workman has been reinstated in service but without back wages. Ms. Peshawaria relies on Section 18(b) of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), which specifically provides that the provisions of any law with respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to an apprentice.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-workman was engaged as an apprentice vide memo of engagement dated 14.10.2005 (P-1) under the provisions of the Act. The appointment letter as apprentice issued to the respondent-workman, is placed on record as Annexure P-2, which records that the selection of the respondent was as an apprentice in the trade of Book Binder in the Haryana Government Press, Chandigarh. The duration of training was specified as two-three years and the respondent was to be paid Rs.820/- per month for the 1 st year and Rs.940/- per month for the 2 nd year. The Labour Court has relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Virender Singh Vs. Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd.,2005 3 RSJ 281, to hold that apprentices are also workman and, therefore, they are protected by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal has held that there were 07 posts of Learner Binder and 75 posts of Book Binder vacant as per the response received from the Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and relied upon. Therefore, the claim of the respondent to regular appointment could have been satisfied. This line of reasoning has been assailed by the State before this Court.