Judgment :- E. PADMANABHAN, J. The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, who is the petitioner in this writ petition, prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the award, dated December 12, 1994, made in I.D. No. 613 of 1992 on the file of the second respondent, Labour Court and quash the same. Heard Sri A. R. Ramanathan for Ramasubramaniam and Associates for the writ-petitioner and Sri Rahul, for the first respondent-workman. For the convenience, the parties will be referred as the management, Labour Court and worker. In the award of the second respondent Labour Court bare facts have not even been set out to give a clear picture and there were material omissions. The counsel on either side requested this Court to refer to the documents marked on their behalf and examine the matter de novo. The workman claiming that he was employed by the petitioner-management, raised an industrial dispute. The workman mainly contended that without even following the minimum procedure he has been dismissed and he is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and back-wages. The second respondent Labour Court by award, dated December 12, 1994 directed the management to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and with 10 per cent of back wages. Challenging the said award, the present writ petition has been filed. It is the contention of the management that the first respondent is not a workman, that there is no relationship of employer and employee, that the first respondent is only a trainee under the particular scheme and he had been rightly discharged, according to the scheme. Per contra, it is contended by the first respondent-workman that though he was initially appointed as trainee, he was allowed to continue after the completion of the training period and that he is a workman in the service of the writ-petitioner, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. It is also the case of the workman that the Special Tahsildar inspected the ration shop and found excess of stock, and obtained his signature on a blank paper. Thereafter he has been relieved without following any procedure and another person has been appointed. According to the workman, his non-employment or denial of employment is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. Thereafter he has been relieved without following any procedure and another person has been appointed. According to the workman, his non-employment or denial of employment is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the Labour Court has rightly directed the reinstatement of the workman and no interference is called for. Before the Labour Court, the workman had examined himself and did not mark any documentary evidence in support of his claim. The management had marked Exhibits M 1 to M 7 and no witness has been examined on the part of the management. In this writ petition, the following points arise for consideration : "(1) Whether the first respondent is workman ? or whether he is a trainee ? (2) Whether the management had without reasonable or just cause, terminated the workman ? (3) To what relief the workman is entitled to ?" All the three points could be considered together. The first respondent had not produced any proceedings of appointment or engagement by the writ-petitioner management nor he had produced any materials to show that he is an irregular employee of the petitioner-Corporation. In the claim petition, it has been claimed that he had joined as a bill clerk on February 18, 1981, that he has been taken as a trainee for two years, after completion of two years his service should have been regularised, that while he was working in the East Thattaparai Ration shop, excess stock was found and his signature has been obtained in a blank paper and therefore without holding an enquiry or without framing charges, his services has been dispensed with by appointing another person in his place. Per contra, the writ-petitioner corporation contended that the first respondent is only a trainee, that during the training period, he was found to have committed commissions and omissions and therefore, his training had been terminated. It is the further case of the management that the first respondent was never employed nor he has been appointed as claimed by the first respondent. The termination is in respect of the trainee and therefore, it is not required for the petitioner to frame charges or to hold an enquiry. It is the further case of the management that the first respondent was never employed nor he has been appointed as claimed by the first respondent. The termination is in respect of the trainee and therefore, it is not required for the petitioner to frame charges or to hold an enquiry. It is contended that the first respondent is not a workman and is not entitled to claim any right, besides it was pointed out that the first respondent is guilty of commissions and omissions. Exhibit M 7 is the proceedings of the Senior Regional Manager of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, dated February 9, 1991, by which the first respondent was selected as a trainee-bill clerk in a village ration shop and was ordered to be attached to Keezha Thattaparai ration shop. The first respondent was required to make a cash deposit of Rs. 250 as a security deposit. The said selection was as a trainee is as per the scheme, which has been marked as Exhibit M 2, the training is called as "Retail Trade Training Programme" framed by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. According to the writ-petitioner, since the retail trade has to be learnt thoroughly, the training period was fixed for two years and during the said period the trainee will be a part of personnel in running the retail shop. Such training is known as "Retail Trade Training Programme" and it prescribes elaborate procedure. As per the programme, the first respondent was selected and deputed to undergo training by proceedings, dated February 9, 1981. It is the case of the first respondent that he had joined the training on February 18, 1981. Exhibit W 1 is the copy of the proceedings, dated February 9, 1981, by which the first respondent was deputed for training for a period of two years. Admittedly, the training period came to an end on February 18, 1983. But, the first respondent was allowed to continue in the same ration shop till May 14, 1983. However, no order of appointment has been passed nor the scale of pay to the first respondent had been fixed by the Corporation nor any further orders have been passed appointing the first respondents as bill clerk by the petitioner-Corporation. As seen from Exhibit M 5, dated June 3, 1983, he was relieved from the training after collecting the value of shortage. As seen from Exhibit M 5, dated June 3, 1983, he was relieved from the training after collecting the value of shortage. Following Exhibit M 5 another person has been posted and the first respondent was relieved. It is admitted by either that certain commissions and omissions were committed by the first respondent even during the training period and it is also claimed that the trainee had made good the loss. Further, we are not concerned with the alleged shortage or the first respondent making good the shortage. Admittedly, even on the date when the first respondent was relieved, he continued to be a trainee, though two years training period had expired two months earlier, but he was receiving stipend only till the date when he was relieved. No order of appointment had been issued to the first respondent and therefore, he had been relieved from the training. In the absence of any proceeding of appointment or posting, the first respondent cannot claim he is a workman employed by the petitioner-Corporation. The first respondent is only a trainee for a fixed period and that he cannot claim that he is a workman. The evidence of the first respondent when he was examined as W.W. 1, is not helpful to substantiate his claim that he is a workman, and that still he is a trainee. There is nothing to show that after completion of training, the trainee will be absorbed automatically. Hence, it is clear that the first respondent is not a workman, but he was only a trainee and even during the training period, by the stock verification it was found that the first respondent/trainee had committed irregularities. The trainee is not a workman and the training is, under a programme, which does not entitle the trainee that after completion of training period he would be appointed or absorbed as workman. The definition of the expression of the workman does not include the trainee. The evidence of M.W. 1 also is clear that the first respondent is only a trainee and he had not been appointed nor any proceeding has been issued to absorb the first respondent on completion of his training. The definition of the expression of the workman does not include the trainee. The evidence of M.W. 1 also is clear that the first respondent is only a trainee and he had not been appointed nor any proceeding has been issued to absorb the first respondent on completion of his training. In the circumstances, on the evidence placed by the first respondent as well as the writ-petitioner herein before the second respondent, Labour Court, it is clear that the first respondent is not a workman, but he is only a trainee. On the second point for the discharge of trainee, it is not necessary to conduct any enquiry or frame charges. The Labour Court had proceeded as if the first respondent is a workman and therefore, minimum procedure should have been followed before terminating the service or discharging him. This is a factual misconception and factual misreading of the materials placed before the Labour Court. Prima facie burden is on the first respondent to prove and establish that he is a workman employed by the writ-petitioner-Corporation. There is no material or document to substantiate such a claim by the first respondent. On a perusal of the evidence, he is not a workman, but he is only a trainee and no right has accrued as no appointment has been made appointing the first respondent as bill clerk by the writ-petitioner-Corporation. After the dismissal, the first respondent has kept silent for considerable number of years and if he had been appointed a workman, he would not have kept silent and he would have very well challenged the dismissal. The discharge was on May 22, 1983 and thereafter, he had not been taken back. Only on December 21, 1987, after a period of 55 months, the first respondent claimed to have sent a representation on December 21, 1987, which has been marked as Exhibit W 3 and even thereafter, two other representations, marked as Exhibit W 7 and Exhibit W 8 respectively, dated January 18, 1988 and September 28, 1988, claimed to have been sent. But, there is nothing to show that such representations were sent by the first respondent by producing acknowledgment. Be that so, it is clear that the first respondent kept quite till he raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act in the year 1992. But, there is nothing to show that such representations were sent by the first respondent by producing acknowledgment. Be that so, it is clear that the first respondent kept quite till he raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act in the year 1992. After a lapse of nearly a decade, such a dispute has been raised. If really, the first respondent was a workman and if he had been denied employment he would not have kept quiet. Further, being a trainee, the first respondent is not entitled to any relief, much less reinstatement as ordered by the Labour Court. The entire award of the Labour Court proceeds on factual misconception and misreading the Labour Court misdirected itself in assuming that the first respondent was a workman and he is entitled to reinstatement with 10 per cent back wages. On the facts of the case, it is clear that the award of the Labour Court suffers with error apparent on the face of the record as it had only proceeded on an assumption, but also surmised in assuming that the first respondent is a workman employed by the petitioner-Corporation. In fact, the first respondent was only a trainee for a limited period of two years and he had been relieved as a trainee only. Therefore, there cannot be any reinstatement of trainee. That apart, it is pointed out by the counsel for the writ-petitioner-Corporation that the Civil Supplies Corporation is no longer running the ration shops and all the ration shops have been .... to the local co-operative societies and there is no chance at all for the writ-petitioner-Corporation to employ any one as a bill clerk. However, that cannot be a ground to deny the first respondent if he is entitled to an order of reinstatement. In this case, merely on completion of training, it cannot be assumed that the first respondent has become an employee of the writ-petitioner-Corporation. The award of the Labour Court cannot be sustained. Though Sri Rahul, learned counsel for the first respondent vehemently argued that the first respondent was a workman and he is entitled to be reinstated and no interference is called for with the award of the Labour Court, the contention advanced by Sri Rahul cannot be sustained. The award of the Labour Court cannot be sustained. Though Sri Rahul, learned counsel for the first respondent vehemently argued that the first respondent was a workman and he is entitled to be reinstated and no interference is called for with the award of the Labour Court, the contention advanced by Sri Rahul cannot be sustained. It is clear that the first respondent is not a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act and no material has been placed to sustain such a claim. On the other hand, there is overwhelming documentary evidence to show that the first respondent was only a trainee and he was relieved before even he has been appointed as a bill clerk by the Civil Supplies Corporation. It is admitted even as a trainee the second respondent had caused shortage of stock and admittedly he made good the loss. This is not in dispute as seen from the very representation. There is no illegality in discharging a trainee as he has no right to the post nor he could claim appointment as of right as seen from the training programme. In the circumstances, the award of the Labour Court is set aside and consequently, the claim made by the first respondent in the industrial dispute will stand dismissed. The writ petition is allowed. The parties shall bear their respective costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.