JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the employer-petitioners, challenging the -award passed by the labour court in leading Writ Petition No. 15022 of 1995, the award dated 28.12.1994 passed in Adjudication Case No. 107 of 1991 and in another Writ Petition No. 29962 of 1994, the award dated 11.10.1993 passed in Adjudication Case No. 252 of 1992 as well as the order dated 5.8.1994 passed by Additional Labour Commissioner. Kanpur. Since the facts and questions of law raised in both the writ petitions are common, they are dealt with together and after hearing learned counsel for the parties in both the cases, they are being disposed of by this common Judgment.
2. In both these writ petitions, the facts leading to the filing of present writ, petitions are that the respondent-workmen concerned were appointed by the employer and their services were terminated, as alleged, without compliance of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, though both the workmen have worked with the employer for more than 240 days. With these two basic admitted facts the employer contested the claim of the workmen that the same were referred to by the State Government before the labour court, inter alia on the ground that both these workmen concerned were initially engaged as apprentice after complying with the provisions of Apprenticeship Act, 1961, therefore, they are not covered by the definition of the workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 and the disengagement or termination of their services would not attract the provisions of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. The labour court, in both the cases, on the basis of facts, pleadings and evidence on record has recorded a finding that except for getting the form filled up for registration as apprentice, nothing further has been done by the employer as is required under the provisions of Apprenticeship Act, 1961. With regard to this argument, admittedly these two workmen have worked for more than 240 days. The findings recorded by the labour court that the provisions of Apprenticeship Act. 1961, have not been complied with and, therefore, the workmen concerned cannot be treated apprentices within the meaning of the provisions of Apprenticeship Act, 1961, was tried to be assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but in vain. The labour court has given cogent reasons for not accepting the case of the employer-petitioners with regard to the word apprentice as defined under Section 2 (a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Upon the pleadings and evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the workmen were engaged only for training, which was sanctioned by the State Government and they cannot be treated as apprentice, they come in general category and the provisions of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, will be applicable as admittedly they have worked for more than 240 days and their services have been terminated without compliance of the provisions of Section 6N of the Act has not been disputed. The labour court directed that the termination of the services of the workmen concerned were Illegal and that the workmen concerned are entitled for re-instatement with continuity of service with consequential benefits. However, the labour court awarded the back wages only from the date of the reference.
3. As already held that the findings recorded by the labour court do not require any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the award of the labour court is upheld so far as it holds that the termination of services of the workmen concerned were illegal and that the workmen concerned are entitled for re-in statement with continuity of service. However, on the question of awarding back wages, the labour court has awarded the back wages only from the date of reference. This itself shows that the labour court was of the opinion that the workmen concerned were not entitled for the compensation of full back wages. Learned counsel for the employer-petitioner have contended that since admittedly the workmen have not worked during the period till the date of award, the labour court was not justified in awarding the back wages with effect from the date of reference. In my opinion, the labour court has committed no error, in this regard, while granting the back wages to the workmen.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is equitable in the interest of justice, as it Is admitted fact that the workmen have not worked during all these period, i.e., from the date of termination till the date of re-instatement, therefore, the workmen shall be entitled for the reinstatement with back wages as stated above. With these modifications of the award, these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. The interim orders, if any, stand vacated. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.