JUDGMENT : 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is a union. It is representing the cause of 22 candidates, who are mentioned in Annexure 'A'. They were posted at the retail outlet at Bhulabhai Desai Road, which is known as COCO II Mumbai (Petrol Pump). The petitioners are praying that those who are listed in Exhibit "A" be directed to be treated as regular employees of respondent No. 1 employed on regular basis and the benefits which are applicable to general employees of respondent No. 1 Indian Oil Corporation be given to them. 3. It has been averred that they are carrying on work of permanent and perennial nature. They are not trainees. As such, though they are designated against the post of "Trainee", no training of any kind is given to them. The respondents want to exploit the social and economic background and employ them only for a period of one year. They are discharging regular nature of work and they are appointed against clear and vacant post. It is, therefore, submitted that they should be treated as workmen falling within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also averred that it is contrary to the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1991. The Apprentices Act provides for training to a fresh candidate facilitating him to gain practical knowhow so that his chances to get employment in the open market become brighter. Apprenticeship means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship. Therefore, it is necessary that before commencing the training, both the parties have to enter into a contract as provided under the Act. But, in the present case, no such contract was ever signed by the parties. The object of the Act is to give effective and meaningful training to the candidates. However, in the present case, those 22 persons who are employed are neither given any training nor for the last one year they were asked to take any kind of training. The respondents do not possess any infrastructure to provide any kind of training. 4. Affidavit-in-reply sworn by one Ram Dattatraya Kale, Chief Employee Relations Manager of respondent No. 1 is filed. The respondents do not possess any infrastructure to provide any kind of training. 4. Affidavit-in-reply sworn by one Ram Dattatraya Kale, Chief Employee Relations Manager of respondent No. 1 is filed. The affidavit-in-reply points out that the Retail Outlet Station at Bhulabhai Desai Road (Breach Candy) was dismantled on November 1, 1999 and the employees who were working there were transferred to various locations. The respondent No. 1 put up a state-of-art fuel station called "Top Gear" with the object of treating the same as a Model Outlet-cum-Training Centre. The said Model Outlet goes beyond the conventional image of a service station and provides for Auto Car Wash, Computerised Car Care, Smart Card, Cyber Cafe, ATM Center, Convince Stores apart from supply of fuel for vehicles and servicing. The respondent plans to open similar Model Outlets-cum-Training Centres in State capitals all over India. The respondent No. 1 has, therefore, decided to have such a Training Centre for training persons whose services could be utilised in other outlets or by dealers in which similar facilities are available. It has been pointed out that specialised training is necessary because in future the outlets would be required to cater to those various services. With this view, the scheme for the company operated Model Retail outlet for training persons has been formulated. It has been further pointed out that prior to the Model Outlet commencing functioning persons were trained for imparting training, In addition, class training by professional agency R.R. Vision is given. It has been further pointed out that the respondent No. 1 has adopted the procedure for selection for training which is entirely different from the procedure followed for recruitment against permanent vacancy/position in employment, inasmuch as in the case of recruitment for permanent employees the Corporation is required to advertise the position in Employment News on All India basis over and above seeking names from the local Employment Exchange. However, in the present case, the request was only made to the local Employment Exchange for sending the candidates for training at the Corporation Model Outlet-cum-Training Centre. The candidates were interviewed and they were informed about their selection. It has been pointed out that the Employment Exchange sponsored the names of 176 persons. Out of them, 36 were selected, but 25 accepted the terms and conditions and 3 thereafter discontinued. The candidates were interviewed and they were informed about their selection. It has been pointed out that the Employment Exchange sponsored the names of 176 persons. Out of them, 36 were selected, but 25 accepted the terms and conditions and 3 thereafter discontinued. It has been specifically pointed out that these persons have been provided classrooms and field training since December/January 2000. They were given training by specialised Agency R. R. Vision, Mumbai. They were given Training History Card and a sample copy is annexed at Exhibit 2 of one Mr. D. R. Parab. It has been denied that they are appointed as regular employees or otherwise treated as employees of the Corporation. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners first submitted that the appointments are contrary to the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961, since they could not have been put for training without following the procedure contemplated by the said Act. Therefore, they cannot be considered as trainees or apprentices. It is not possible to accede to this contention. We have already pointed out as to how the training programme has been devised by the respondents. We have gone through the Training Scheme. The Training Scheme was prepared on June 25, 1999. It inter alia provides for eligibility, source etc. It is mentioned that the Scheme shall be called as "Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Training Scheme] for Trainees to be trained in Company's own Operated Retail Outlet." It gives its objective as to provide basic field training in work related to (i) product knowledge and delivery of MS/HSD/Lubrication in customer vehicles, (ii) service centre in connection with cleaning, lubrication of customer vehicles, (iii) technical knowhow of the sophisticated machines and equipments, handling of petroleum products and safety, (iv) customer service. The eligibility is of those who are in the age group of 18 to 30 years and with educational qualification equivalent to S.S.C. The upper age limit for SC/ST is relaxed for 5 years and for O.B.C. 3 years. It mentions about giving of stipend and the benefits which are to be paid under the Provident Fund, E.S.I. and Bonus. It also mentions in Term (19) that: "19. No trainee will be allowed to register and/or join the said training if he has already undertaken Training /Apprenticeship under this scheme or the earlier apprentice/trainee scheme of the Company". It mentions about giving of stipend and the benefits which are to be paid under the Provident Fund, E.S.I. and Bonus. It also mentions in Term (19) that: "19. No trainee will be allowed to register and/or join the said training if he has already undertaken Training /Apprenticeship under this scheme or the earlier apprentice/trainee scheme of the Company". The selected candidate is given selection letter in a prescribed form which inter alia mentions that the Training Programme does not entitle him in any manner on completion of the training programme any job or employment with Company nor does the Company guarantee to give any job. The trainees are required to accept those terms and conditions. Accordingly, all those 22 candidates have accepted and have undergone the said training. 6. Section 2(aa) defines "apprentice" as under: "2(aa) "Apprentice" means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship". The phrase 'Contract of apprenticeship' means as provided in Section 4. Section 4(1) provides for contract of apprenticeship and Section 4(1) is as under: "4(1) No person shall be engaged as an apprentice to undergo apprenticeship training in a designated trade unless such person or, if he is a minor, his guardian has entered into a contract of apprenticeship with the employer". Therefore, it contemplates training in designated trade. "Designated trade" is defined u/s 2(e) as under: "2(e) "designated trade" means any trade or occupation or any subject field in engineering or technology or any vocational course, which the Central Government, after consultation with the Central Apprenticeship Council, may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify as a designated trade for the purposes of this Act." We have not been pointed out that the Central Government has issued any such notification in respect of training which is contemplated by the respondent under the present Scheme. Obviously, the provisions of Apprentices Act, 1961 has no application whatsoever. 7. It has been next contended that these 22 candidates should be treated as workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They have completed 240 days of work and hence, the respondents be directed to give them the benefit of regular employment. 8. We have already pointed out in detail as to how the Training Scheme is devised by the respondents. They have completed 240 days of work and hence, the respondents be directed to give them the benefit of regular employment. 8. We have already pointed out in detail as to how the Training Scheme is devised by the respondents. These 22 are not the employees and they cannot be called as employees merely because the said Outlet works for 24 hours and in three shifts or the type of work is of permanent nature. The averment made in the petition that they were not given any kind of training and that they are merely required to do regular work has not only been denied by the respondents, but the respondents have given details as to how the training is imparted to these candidates and how the Training History Cards are maintained. Exhibit-2 filed to the reply also points out as to how the training is given to the candidates. This training is given in view of the recent technical developments which have taken place and this is the first such Training Centre opened by the respondents not only for the benefit of its own outlets but also of other dealers. Those candidates are given the benefit of the said Provident Fund, E.S.I. and Bonus under the Scheme itself. The law governing the same also requires that trainees should be given such benefits. Merely because these benefits are given, they cannot be termed as "workmen". 9. It is next contended that it is impermissible for the respondents to have such a Training Scheme in view of the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961. However, we do not find that there is any such prohibition or that the respondent cannot frame its own Training Scheme. In fact, the said Scheme was accepted by those candidates and they have acted upon it and at the fag end when the training is over, they have come to this Court to say that they should be treated as regular employees. In fact, it would amount to backdoor entry since the respondents have pointed out as to how the regular employees are required to be selected by following the procedure and how different procedure is adopted for selecting these trainees. Therefore, we find that there is no substance in this petition. Rejected. The order of status quo to stand vacated. 10. In fact, it would amount to backdoor entry since the respondents have pointed out as to how the regular employees are required to be selected by following the procedure and how different procedure is adopted for selecting these trainees. Therefore, we find that there is no substance in this petition. Rejected. The order of status quo to stand vacated. 10. The learned counsel prays for continuation of the ad interim order of status quo passed on December 2, 2000. However, it is not possible to continue the same, as it has been pointed out by the respondents that the training of these 22 candidates is already over and new batch is already selected and is waiting. Prayer rejected.