JUDGMENT : S. Jagadeesan, J.—The petitioner was working as a casual workman in the city office of the second respondent herein. When the city office was closed, the petitioner made a request to the second respondent for some employment. The petitioner was informed by the second respondent that he can be taken as a trainee for a period of nine months in the factory and after the completion of the training period, he can be considered for an advanced training of two years. After the written tests on October 12, 1991, the petitioner was appointed as a trainee under the second respondent on October 28, 1991, for a period of nine months. The petitioner joined duty on November 1, 1991. On June 26, 1992, the petitioner was informed that his training under the Operative Training Scheme would come to an en 1 on the expiry of the period of training, i.e. July 31, 1992. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated June 26, 1992, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 153 of 1993 on the file of the First Additional Labour Court, Madras. 2. The first respondent passed an award on September 11, 1995, granting a sum of Rs. 20,000 by way of compensation to the petitioner. The first respondent rejected the relief claimed by the petitioner for reinstatement. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition has been filed. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been in employment of the second respondent since July, 1979, and subsequently, in various posts he was accommodated as a casual worker. The petitioner having served with the second respondent for nearly 13 years, it is not open to the second respondent to terminate the services of the petitioner abruptly without regularising his services. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the petitioner was employed in the city office. When the city office was closed, the petitioner requested for some employment and subsequently, the petitioner was employed in the factory and in 1991, he was employed only as a trainee specifically mentioning that after the training period there is no guarantee of any employment. The petitioner opted for the same and appeared for the written examination. Subsequently, he was taken as a trainee under the Operative Training Scheme for a period of nine months. The petitioner opted for the same and appeared for the written examination. Subsequently, he was taken as a trainee under the Operative Training Scheme for a period of nine months. After the completion of the training period, the petitioner was relieved and hence, there is no question of termination of service of the petitioner arises. Taking into consideration the long employment of the petitioner, the Labour Court awarded the compensation and, therefore, there is no illegality in the award. 5. This Court considered the rival contentions of both counsel. It is true that the petitioner had been in employment of the second respondent since 1979. But, however, there is nothing on record to show that he has been in permanent employment. He was only employed on a temporary basis. There is also no dispute that in the years, 1992 and 1994, the second respondent firm was not in good shape and they gave the option of Voluntary Retirement Scheme to the permanent employees. In fact the Labour Court has taken this factor into consideration and found that when the permanent employees of the second respondent were sent out under the V.R. Scheme, that itself is enough proof that the second respondent is not in requirement of any additional employees. When that be so, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the award passed by the Labour Court in refusing the relief of reinstatement. 6. Even considering the question of reinstatement, it may be pertinent to note that finally the petitioner was taken into employment in 1991 as a trainee with the caution note that after the training period is over there is no guarantee of employment. When the petitioner has opted for such scheme and when he was terminated after the training period, he cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. However, the Labour Court, on consideration of the fact that the petitioner was in employment of the second respondent for a considerably long period on temporary basis, awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000 by way of compensation. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, there will be no orders as to the costs.