ORDER : S. Nagamuthu, J. The Petitioner is the Management and second Respondent is the Trade Union. Members of the second Respondent Trade Union are the workmen employed by the Petitioner Management. In this writ petition, the Petitioner Management challenges the order passed by the first Respondent under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment, of Permanent status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') by proceedings No. E/2866/2000 dated April 30, 2001, wherein the first Respondent has directed the Petitioner to confer permanentship in work for 16 employees enumerated in the order. 2. It is brought to the notice of this Court, that except one R.M. Subramani, R. Velliangiri and M. Chandra, other workmen have settled their disputes with the Petitioner and therefore this writ petition is not pressed in respect of those persons. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would advance his argument by pressing for orders only in respect of R.M. Subramani, P. Velliangiri and M. Chandra who are in Sl. Nos. 1, 5 and 11 in the impugned order. 3. According to the facts, the above three persons joined service on September 22, 1997. Since they had worked for more than 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months, according to the second Respondent Trade Union, they were entitled for permanentship as per the provisions of the Act. Since the same was not given, the second Respondent made appropriate Application before the first Respondent. After holding enquiry, the first Respondent passed orders on April 30, 2001 directing the Petitioner to give permanentship for the above three candidates besides others. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition. 4. It is contended by the Petitioner that the aforesaid three workmen initially joined as Apprentices for training in the Petitioner Establishment for a period of three years. The learned Counsel would submit that the period of apprenticeship cannot be taken into account while calculating the number of days" worked during the period of 24 calendar months as provided under the Act. In this regard the learned Counsel would rely on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Metal Powder Co. Ltd., Tirumangalam and Another Vs. The learned Counsel would submit that the period of apprenticeship cannot be taken into account while calculating the number of days" worked during the period of 24 calendar months as provided under the Act. In this regard the learned Counsel would rely on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Metal Powder Co. Ltd., Tirumangalam and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, (1985) 2 LLJ 376 Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Manali Petrochemical Ltd. v. Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories (2007) 7 MLJ 296 . The learned Counsel would therefore- submit that as the above period is spent on training, the aforesaid three persons are not entitled for the permanentship as per the provisions of the Act. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the second Respondent would submit that it is not true that the above three persons joined service only on September 22, 1997 and instead they joined service in the year 1995 itself. Therefore even if the period of training is excluded, still it will come to light that they worked for more than 480 days in the period of 24 calendar months and they are entitled for permanentship. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. 7. The contention of the second Respondent that the above three persons joined service in 1995, is not supported by any material. A perusal of the impugned order of the first Respondent itself would go to show that those persons joined service only on September 22, 1997. Therefore, the contention of the second Respondent in this regard is only liable to be rejected. 8. Coming to judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, there is no doubt thot it has been well settled that the period spent on training as apprentice should be excluded while calculating the number of days of service for the purpose of the above Act. If that is to be taken, the above persons are not entitled for conferment of permanentship. In view of the same, the Petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. 9. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed and the order of the first Respondent directing the Petitioner to confer permanentship on Mr. R.M. Subramaniam (Sl. No. 1), R. Velliangiri (Sl. No. 5) and Chandra (Sl. No. 11) is set aside. No costs.