JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner after having obtained a trade certificate from the Industrial Training Institute, Jaipur in Fitter trade in the year 1978 applied to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation for being given the job of an apprentice. On 26-9-1978 the petitioner obtained the said job. The period of the apprentice-ship was one year. The petitioner was told on 5th Sept. 1981 by the Assistant Mechanical Engineer (A.M.E.) that his services will be discontinued from 27th Sept. 1981. The petitioner's request for continuing him as an apprentice, however, went futile. He was getting Rs. 150/- p. m. as salary on which he had been initially kept. 2. The petitioner, thereafter, filed the present writ petition asserting that after 27-9-1979 when the period of apprenticeship training expired he became a workman and could be terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. His claim was refuted by the Roadways Corporation on the plea that the petitioner was an apprentice and even after the expiry of the period of one year he continued on his own request as such. Through this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has asserted that as the provisions of Section 25-F had not been followed the termination was invalid. 3. Having heard the counsel for the parties, I am unable to hold that the petitioner was a workman within the meaning of that word defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. The first question that arises for consideration is to find out the status of the petitioner. He had been taken in service as an apprentice for one year. Even after the expiry of the period of apprenticeship the petitioner continued in that very capacity drawing Rs. 150/- p. m. which he was getting initially. The submission of the petitioner's counsel is that he was a workman within the meaning of that term under the Industrial Disputes Act and that consequently, the first respondent could not have terminated the petitioner's services without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner did not acquire the status of a workman. He continued to be an apprentice. The word apprentice has been defined under section 2(aa) of the Apprentices Act. 'Apprentice' means a person who is under-going apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship. 5. The petitioner did not acquire the status of a workman. He continued to be an apprentice. The word apprentice has been defined under section 2(aa) of the Apprentices Act. 'Apprentice' means a person who is under-going apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship. 5. In the instant case, it was in pursuance of an agreement that the petitioner had been kept as an apprentice by the Roadways Corporation. It is true that its term expires after one year, but the petitioner continued and drawing Rs. 150/- p. m. which he was getting initially. 6. In Bhaskaran v. Kerala State Electy. Board, 1986-VOL-II L.L.J. 346 , the Kerala High Court observed as under:- "Hence the provisions of S. 18 of the Apprentice Act comes into operation and therefore the concerned persons cannot be regarded as workers and the provisions of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not attracted. Therefore the termination is valid." 7. In Hanuman Prasad Choudhary v. RSEB Jaipur, RLR 1985, 842 , the learned Single Judge of this Court held that an apprentice is governed by the Apprentices Act 1961 and is not workman for the purpose of Industrial Dispute Act and, as such, Industrial Disputes Act would not be applicable. 8. Parties who have made an express contract to be in effect for one year frequently proceed with performance after expiration of the year without making any new express agreement, of extension or otherwise. From such continued action a court may infer that the parties have agreed in fact to renew the one year contract for another similar period. 9. In the instant case, the petitioner's continuance did not clothe him with higher status than what he had at the time of entry in the respondents employment. He was an apprentice. 10. Consequently, this writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******