Judgment :- K. Govindarajan, J 1. The petitioner has apprenticeship arrangement by which apprentices are engaged for the job training and they are paid stipend. They are not eligible for benefits such as bonus during the period of practical trading and at the end of the training they are given appropriate certificate. 2. That being the fact the respondent issued a notice, dated 25 May 1995, claiming contributions for apprenticeship for two periods from 1 January to December 1994 and another period spanning 1983, 1984 to 19 October 1989. These claims are made in respect of the contribution due on the stipend paid to the said apprentices. 3. The petitioner made a representation and disputed their liability. In spite of that the respondents passed the impugned order, dated 23 August 1986, asking the petitioner to pay the contribution of Rs. 6,14,189 for the period from 1983-84 to 19 October 1989 together with interest payable at the rate of 15 per cent for each day of further default from the date of the order till the date of payment. 4. That order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 5454 of 1998. The petitioner paid the said amount under protest. Since the petitioner delayed the payment, the respondent directed the petitioner to pay damages of Rs. 96,716. That order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 2383 of 1998. 5. In all these two cases, the issue involved is whether the petitioner is liable to pay the contribution on the stipend paid to the apprentices. Even in the order, dated 23 August 1996, the department found that those persons are only apprentices and not employees as defined under S.2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act. Having found that they are not employees, the respondent claimed the contribution only on the basis that the Act has been amended only with effect from 20 October 1989 whereby the apprentice appointed under the Standing Orders of establishment are not coverable as per provisions of S.2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act and so for earlier period they are liable.6. The approach of the respondent cannot be sustained. Merely because such an amendment has been made with effect from 20 October 1989, it cannot be said that the apprentices should be considered an employees before this period. The approach of the respondent cannot be sustained. Merely because such an amendment has been made with effect from 20 October 1989, it cannot be said that the apprentices should be considered an employees before this period. It is not in dispute that there is no other provision under the Act bringing these apprentices within the definition of S.2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act. 7. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in Employees' State Insurance Corporation & Anr. v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company, Ltd., & Anr., dealing with the scope held as, follows in Para 14, at page 502 : "The concept of apprenticeship is, therefore, fairly known and has now been clearly recognized in the Apprentices Act. Apart from that, as we have noticed earlier, the terms and conditions under which these apprentices are engaged do not give any scope for holding that they are employed in the work of the company or in connection with its work for wages within the meaning of S.2(9) of the Act. The appeal, therefore, fails and dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs". 8. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and hence they are set aside and the respondent is directed to refund the amount with 15 per cent interest immediately.