Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is a Company having its Mill at Coimbatore employing nearly 152 workmen, including the Trainees. The petitioner takes apprentices to train them in the various Departments of the Mills so that proper training could be given to them before they could be considered for employment in the petitioner Mills. The petitioner took the first respondent as a Trainee, on 16. 1993 and he was under training during the period from 1993 to 1996. 3. It has been further stated that the first respondent had submitted his voluntary resignation, on 26. 1996, written in his own handwriting, requesting the petitioner Management to relieve him from service. On the basis of the resignation letter submitted by the first respondent, the petitioner Management had relieved him, by accepting his resignation, by a letter, dated 26. 1996, which was sent to him by a certificate of posting. Having resigned from being a trainee under the petitioner Management, the first respondent had written a letter, dated 26. 1996, stating that he could not attend the training period from 26. 1996 to 26. 1996 as he was unwell. However, the petitioner Management had replied to him stating that since he had resigned on his own accord, his request cannot be accepted. Therefore, the first respondent had raised a dispute before the Labour Officer alleging that his service was orally terminated by the petitioner Management, even though he had submitted his application for leave along with a medical certificate showing that he was unwell. The petitioner Management had stated that the first respondent had voluntarily resigned from being a Trainee and therefore, there was no termination. 4. It has been further stated that on the submission of the failure report, the first respondent had raised an Industrial Dispute before the second respondent labour Court in I.D.No.31 of 1997. It was contended by the first respondent that his service was terminated orally and that he was not given any termination order, even though he had worked for more than 3 years from 1993 to 1996. In his statement, the first respondent had also alleged that he was sick during the period from 20.6.1996 to 26. 1996 and therefore, he could not attend to his duties and he had sent a leave application by a registered post, on 26. In his statement, the first respondent had also alleged that he was sick during the period from 20.6.1996 to 26. 1996 and therefore, he could not attend to his duties and he had sent a leave application by a registered post, on 26. 1996, enclosing the medical certificate showing that he was unwell. The first respondent had also stated that he was a permanent worker, working as a Spinning Sider, under the petitioner Management and that he was drawing a salary of Rs.1703/- per month. The petitioner Management had contended that the first respondent was an apprentice and that he had resigned from the apprenticeship training, voluntarily. Therefore, there could not be any industrial dispute, under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. It has been further stated that the first respondent had filed the relevant documents and had examined himself as a witness. The petitioner Management had also filed the necessary documents and had examined 2 witnesses on behalf of the Management, to prove that the first respondent had voluntarily submitted his resignation from the apprenticeship training. The second respondent labour Court, after hearing the arguments advanced by both the sides and having perused the records available before it and on analysing the oral evidence adduced by the petitioner Management, as well as the first respondent employee, had passed the award, dated 210. 2000, in I.D.No.31 of 1997, directing the petitioner Management to reinstate the first respondent, with continuity of service, along with the backwages due to him, on the ground that the termination of the first respondent by the petitioner Management was illegal and void, as it was contrary to law. Challenging the award of the second respondent labour Court, dated 210. 2000, in I.D.No.31 of 1997, the present writ petition has been filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Management had submitted that the impugned award of the labour Court, dated 210. 2000, made in I.D.No.31 of 1997, suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 7. It has also been stated that the impugned award is erroneous in law, as the second respondent labour Court had failed to realise that the signature of the workman on the resignation letter had not been disputed by the workman. 7. It has also been stated that the impugned award is erroneous in law, as the second respondent labour Court had failed to realise that the signature of the workman on the resignation letter had not been disputed by the workman. Exhibit M.2, which is the letter of acceptance, had been issued by the petitioner Management by a Certificate of Posting, accepting the resignation of the first respondent. The workman had not stated that he had not received the said letter. The second respondent labour Court had erred in coming to its conclusions by stating that no witnesses had been examined by the petitioner Management, with regard to the alleged signing of the resignation letter by the first respondent, especially, when the first respondent had not disputed the claim of the petitioner Management that the signature on the resignation letter was his own. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Management had further submitted that the second respondent labour Court had taken note of several irrelevant factors while coming to its conclusions. The second respondent labour Court ought to have considered the fact that the first respondent had not produced any acceptable evidence regarding his alleged sickness, as no medical certificate had been produced in support of it. The second respondent labour Court ought not to have accepted the allegation of the first respondent that he was orally terminated from service when he had reported for duty, on 26. 1996. The petitioner Management could not produce the records pertaining to the first respondent, as the such records were maintained only with regard to the permanent workmen. Since the first respondent was only a trainee, no records were available with regard to his service. The second respondent labour Court should have noted that the first respondent workman had not produced any record to show that he was a permanent employee under the petitioner Management. It was clear from the settlement concluded under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that there were Trainees undergoing training under the petitioner Management. When the first respondent was in the petitioner Mills only for a period of three years, the second respondent labour Court ought not to have directed the petitioner Management to reinstate the first respondent, with continuity of service, along with the backwages due to him. When the first respondent was in the petitioner Mills only for a period of three years, the second respondent labour Court ought not to have directed the petitioner Management to reinstate the first respondent, with continuity of service, along with the backwages due to him. The first respondent had not produced any evidence to show that he was terminated from service by the petitioner Management, without notice. Therefore, the award of the second respondent labour Court, dated 210. 2000, made in I.D.No.31 of 1997, is arbitrary, illegal and void. .9. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had submitted that the first respondent was employed as a Spinning Sider in the petitioner Mills. At the time of his termination from service, he had put in three years of continuous service as a regular workman involved in production. Since the first respondent was unwell from 20.6.1996 to 26. 1996, he had sent a letter, dated 26. 1996, by a registered post, on 26. 1996, along with the medical certificate. When he had reported for duty, on 26. 1996, he was unjustly denied the employment by the petitioner Management, without giving any reason. The claim of the petitioner Management that the first respondent had voluntarily resigned from being a Trainee under the petitioner Management is false, since the petitioner Management had refused to give employment to the first respondent when he had turned up for work after his illness. Therefore, the first respondent had raised an industrial dispute before the second respondent labour Court after the failure of the conciliation proceedings. The second respondent labour Court, after analysing the evidence on record and the submissions made on behalf of the first respondent, as well as the petitioner Management, had rightly found that the first respondent had been illegally denied employment without following the procedures established by law and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the second respondent labour Court had passed the award, dated 210. 2000, in I.D.No.31 of 1997, directing the petitioner Management to reinstate the first respondent, with continuity of service, along with the backwages due to him. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs. Therefore, the second respondent labour Court had passed the award, dated 210. 2000, in I.D.No.31 of 1997, directing the petitioner Management to reinstate the first respondent, with continuity of service, along with the backwages due to him. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs. I.O.B. STAFF CANTEEN WORKERS UNION (2000) 4 SCC 245 ), in support of his contentions that this Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not, in normal circumstances, interfere with the pure findings of fact by the labour Court and that this Court does not re-appreciate the evidence which was available before the labour Court. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in TRAMBAK RUBBER INDUSTRIES LTD., Vs. NASHIK WORKERS UNION (2003 AIR SCW 4727) wherein it was held that the Trainees are workmen, since it has not been proved by the Management that they had remained as Trainees in the true sense of the term, even though they had worked for more than 1 ½ years performing regular work under the appellant Industry. .12. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner Management as well as the first respondent workman and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is clear that the second respondent labour Court had come to its conclusions based on the evidence available before it, both oral as well as documentary. The second respondent labour Court had found that there was no sufficient evidence to support the plea of the petitioner Management that the first respondent had voluntarily submitted his resignation letter, dated 26. 1996 and to substantiate its claim that the first respondent is only a trainee under the petitioner Management. No evidence had been placed before the second respondent labour Court to show that the first respondent was undergoing apprenticeship under the petitioner Management and that he was not a regular employee, even though he was under the petitioner Management for three years, from 1993 to 1996. No evidence had been placed before the second respondent labour Court to show that the first respondent was undergoing apprenticeship under the petitioner Management and that he was not a regular employee, even though he was under the petitioner Management for three years, from 1993 to 1996. From the evidence of the Supervisor of the petitioner Mills, the second respondent labour Court had come to the conclusion that the first respondent was not a Trainee and that he was a workman, who was directly involved in the production in the petitioner Mills. 13. Even though an interlocutory application had been filed by the first respondent workman before the second respondent labour Court, in I.A.No.402 of 1999, for a direction to the petitioner Management to produce certain relevant documents and the said application had been ordered, the petitioner Management had failed to produce the said documents. In such circumstances, the second respondent labour Court had taken adverse inference against the petitioner Management and it had come to the conclusion that the first respondent was a regular workman under the petitioner Management and that he was denied employment by the petitioner Management, without issuing any notice to him and without following the procedures established by law and therefore, the second respondent labour Court had passed the award, dated 210. 2000, in I.D.No.31 of 1997, directing the petitioner Management to reinstate the first respondent, with continuity of service, along with the back wages due to him. 14. In such circumstances, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the award of the second respondent labour Court, dated 210. 2000, in I.D.No.31 of 1997. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.