JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition by the employer is directed against award dated 28.5.1997 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (IV), U.P., Kanpur in adjudication case No. 17/96. The matter which was referred to the Labour Court was as to whether the action of the petitioner-employer in terminating the services of its workman-respondent No. 2 Suresh Chandra Sharma, Boiler attendant with effect from 12.3.1985 was valid or not. The case of respondent No. 2 was that he was engaged as apprentice trainee w.e.f. 12.3.1982 by the petitioner and he worked as boiler attendant like regular boiler attendant and that the petitioner employer did not get registered the agreement of training. It was also alleged by respondent No. 2 that petitioner employer did not arrange the facility of R.I. course and also did not arrange for training from National Council and grant of certificate to respondent No. 2. The labour Court found the allegations of respondent No. 2 to be correct and placed reliance upon an authority of this Court reported in 1992 (65) FLR 203 , Karuna Shankar Tripathi and others v. State of U.P. and others, in which it has been held that as provisions of Apprentice Act, 1961 had not been complied with hence the trainee should be treated to be workman under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act [Section 2 (z)]. 3. The Supreme Court in U.P.S.E.B. v. Shiv Mohan Singh, 2004 (5) ESC 71 (SC), has held that even if provisions of Apprentice Act 1961 have not been complied with and contract has not been got registered still apprentice does not become workman. 4. In view of the above authority of the Supreme Court this writ petition is to be allowed. 5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited several authorities (13 in number). In view of the above authority of the Supreme Court of Shiv Mohan no other authority on the point is relevant. 6. In the written arguments on behalf of respondent No. 2, it has been stated that interim order passed by this Court was not complied with hence workman got released salary by getting issued recovery certificates from Deputy Labour Commissioner under Section 6-H(1) of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. 7. 6. In the written arguments on behalf of respondent No. 2, it has been stated that interim order passed by this Court was not complied with hence workman got released salary by getting issued recovery certificates from Deputy Labour Commissioner under Section 6-H(1) of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent that respondent No. 2 was not engaged as apprentice trainee (trade apprentice) under Apprentice Act, 1961 is not tenable as in the entire award the only point discussed is the status of respondent No. 2 who was apprentice trainee but requirement of Apprentice Act were not fulfilled, Management in para-7 of its written statement filed before Labour Court categorically stated that respondent No. 2 was engaged as apprentice trainee. In the written reply by respondent No. 2 to the written statement of the management the respondent No. 2 workman in para-1 categorically stated that management engaged the respondent No. 2 as apprentice, however, the provisions of Apprentice Act, 1961 were not complied with (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). 8. When arguments were heard in this writ petition, Iearned counsel for respondent No. 2 referred to a writ petition filed by Jai Prakash Tewari (Writ Petition No. 47296 of 2008). File of the said writ petition was summoned. However, allegations made in the said writ petition are not relevant for the present case. It appears that J.P. Tewari had also been directed to be reinstated by the labour Court against which he filed writ petition being writ petition No. 17542 of 1997 which was allowed on 15.7.2003. Said judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9681 of 2003 which was dismissed on 1.10.2007. In the writ petition of 2008 by J.P. Tewari it has been stated that some removed apprentice trainees were again employed by the petitioner. The said point has not been substantiated in this writ petition and in the impugned order of the labour Court no such point was taken. Moreover, apprentice trainees not being workman, no relief can be granted to them by the labour Court. Accordingly, that question cannot be considered in this writ petition. Even otherwise dispute was raised after 11 years. So much delay is fatal. 9. Writ petition is therefore, allowed. Impugned award is set aside. Moreover, apprentice trainees not being workman, no relief can be granted to them by the labour Court. Accordingly, that question cannot be considered in this writ petition. Even otherwise dispute was raised after 11 years. So much delay is fatal. 9. Writ petition is therefore, allowed. Impugned award is set aside. However, whatever amount has been paid to the respondent No. 2 under the impugned award shall not be refundable. No further amount under the impugned award even for the past period shall now be payable to the respondent No. 2. ————