Judgment :- M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 26.4.2011, made in W.P.No.1280 of 2011. 2. The appellant in the present writ appeal was the petitioner in the writ petition, in W.P.No.1280 of 2011. The writ petition had been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent Tribunal, dated 29.12.2010, made in A.T.A.No.338 (13) of 2007, confirming the order of the second respondent, dated 12.4.2007. 3. The petitioner in the writ petition, who is the appellant in the present writ appeal, had preferred an appeal before the first respondent Tribunal, under Section 7-I of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), challenging the order passed by the second respondent, under Section 7-A of the Act. 4. The second respondent had been called upon to determine the status of 159 employees of the petitioner Mill and to find out if they are covered under the provisions of the Act, and if the Management of the petitioner Mill had failed to enroll the eligible employees into the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. Therefore, an enquiry had been conducted, under para 26-B of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. Based on the enquiry, the second respondent had held that the apprentices appointed, as per the certified standing orders applicable to the establishment, need not be enrolled into the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, as per paragraph 26-B of the employees provident fund scheme, 1952. However, he had arrived at the conclusion that the 159 apprentices appointed by the Management of the petitioner Mill were, in fact, employees engaged in the production line. The second respondent had also found that the apprentices in question were getting bonus, leave facilities, allowances etc. It had also been admitted by the representatives of the establishment, during their deposition, that the apprentices were being given the benefits on par with the other employees. As such, they were being treated as the employees of the petitioner Mill. As such, they would fall within the purview of the definition of the 'employees’ under section 2(f) of the Act. 5. It had also been found that there was not much of a difference in pay between the regular employees and the apprentices. As such, they were being treated as the employees of the petitioner Mill. As such, they would fall within the purview of the definition of the 'employees’ under section 2(f) of the Act. 5. It had also been found that there was not much of a difference in pay between the regular employees and the apprentices. The apprentices were getting the allowances, bonus, leave facilities etc., on par with the other employees. They were also working as per the shift system. 6. The second respondent had also held that the apprentices are usually engaged by an establishment to provide training to the employees of the establishment. After the period of training they leave the establishment without making any claim for regular employment. The apprentices would only be paid stipend, as they are not entitled to any other benefits. However, the apprentices in question, who had been employed by the petitioner Mill, were actually contributing to the production of the petitioner Mill like the regular employees and therefore, they are entitled to be enrolled into the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, under para 26-B of the said Scheme. 7. The appellant herein had filed an appeal challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 12.4.2007, before the first respondent Tribunal, contending that the second respondent ought to have seen that the person to be covered under the provisions of the Act should satisfy the definition of the term ‘employees’, as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. As such, the apprentices engaged by the petitioner Mill would not fall within the definition of 'employees', under Section 2(f) of the Act. The appellant had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE Vs. CENTRAL ARECANUT AND COCA MARKETING AND PROCESSING COOP. LTD., ( 2006 (2) SCC 381 ), in support of his contentions. 8. It had been further contended that an apprentice is only a learner, who is imparted with the necessary training for the purpose of acquiring skills in a chosen field. They cannot be called as 'employees'. Further, the regular employees are paid their profit sharing bonus whereas, in the case of the apprentices no such bonus is paid. 9. The first respondent Tribunal had rejected the case of the appellant by stating that the apprentices engaged by the appellant Mill were contributing to the production, directly. They cannot be called as 'employees'. Further, the regular employees are paid their profit sharing bonus whereas, in the case of the apprentices no such bonus is paid. 9. The first respondent Tribunal had rejected the case of the appellant by stating that the apprentices engaged by the appellant Mill were contributing to the production, directly. The apprentices were also getting the attendance bonus, leave etc. and they were also working in the shift system. As such, the apprentices were covered by the provisions of the Act. 10. Challenging the order passed by the first respondent Tribunal, the appellant had preferred the writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.1280 of 2011. This Court, by its order, dated 26.4.2011, had dismissed the writ petition, confirming the order passed by the first respondent Tribunal, dated 29.12.2010. 11. The learned single Judge of this Court, in his order, dated 26.4.2011, made in W.P.No.1280 of 2011, had held that, when the first respondent Tribunal, as well as the second respondent, had recorded a finding of fact that the workers were engaged as apprentices and when regular work had been extracted from them in the production line and when they were also getting other benefits, such as, attendance bonus, leave facilities etc., they would be covered under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in the present writ appeal had submitted, inter alia, that the learned single Judge had failed to see that the apprentices had been employed, as per the certified standing orders of the appellant Mill. They were not regular workers of the appellant Mill and therefore, they would not be covered under the provisions of the Act. The apprentices would not fall under the definition of 'employees', as per section 2(f) of the Act. Even though certain allowances, including bonus, were being paid to the apprentices and leave facilities were also made available to them, they would not fall under the category of regular workers. The apprentices engaged by the appellant were not granted the profit sharing bonus. 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had further submitted that the learned single judge ought to have noted that the findings of the first appellate Tribunal was not based on a full-fledged trial. The apprentices engaged by the appellant were not granted the profit sharing bonus. 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had further submitted that the learned single judge ought to have noted that the findings of the first appellate Tribunal was not based on a full-fledged trial. The findings of fact by the first respondent Tribunal are not based on the relevant records. The apprentices were only paid stipend and attendance incentives. However, they were not eligible for Provident Fund, employees' State Insurance and other privileges applicable to the employees. Even if the apprentices had been working for long periods, they cannot be considered to be regular workers. Even though a substantial number of apprentices had been employed by the appellant Mill, they cannot be considered to be regular workers covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in E.S.I.Corpn. Vs. TATA Engg. & Loco Co. (1976 1 L.L.J 81), wherein, it had been held that the principal object with which the parties concerned enter into an agreement of apprenticeship relates to the offer made by the employer and an opportunity to the other party to the agreement to learn the trade or craft, by acquiring theoretical or practical knowledge that may be obtained in the course of the training. As per the terms of the agreement the apprentices are mere trainees for a particular period, for a distinct purpose. The employer would not be bound to employ them for the works after the period of training is over. During the apprenticeship they cannot be said to be employed in the work of the company or in connection with the work of the company. 15. The learned counsel had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Central Arecanut & Coca Marketing and Processing Coop. Ltd, (2006) 2 SCC 381 , wherein, it had been held that Section 2(f) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, defines an employee to include an apprentice. However, it makes an exclusion in the case of an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act and under the Standing Orders. Central Arecanut & Coca Marketing and Processing Coop. Ltd, (2006) 2 SCC 381 , wherein, it had been held that Section 2(f) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, defines an employee to include an apprentice. However, it makes an exclusion in the case of an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act and under the Standing Orders. Thus, an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act or under the Standing Orders is excluded from the definition of an employee, as per section 2(f) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 16. As such, the order of the learned single Judge, dated 26.4.2011, made in W.P.No.1280 of 2011, is erroneous, unsustainable in the eye of law and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 17. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that the apprentices in question had been carrying on regular work contributing to the production of the appellant Mill. They had been paid certain allowances, and had been provided with certain leave facilities. They had also been treated on par with the other regular employees. As such, the apprentices are covered under the Act, as held by the Division Bench of this Court, in N.E.P.C. TEXTILES LTD., Vs. ASST. P.F. COMMISSIONER (2007-I-LLJ 902). Therefore, the present appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 26.4.2011, made in W.P.No.1280 of 2011, is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 18. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that the apprentices in question, employed by the appellant Mill, ought to be considered as regular employees, covered under the provisions of the Act. 19. It is noted that the apprentices had been working in the appellant Mill, on a regular basis, contributing to the production of the said Mill. They had been paid certain allowances, including bonus, and they had also been provided with certain facilities, like the regular employees. Further, a substantial number of apprentices had been engaged by the appellant Mill to do the works, as regular employees. While so, it would not open to the appellant Mill to claim that the apprentices would not be entitled for the benefits provided under the provisions of the Act. 20. Further, a substantial number of apprentices had been engaged by the appellant Mill to do the works, as regular employees. While so, it would not open to the appellant Mill to claim that the apprentices would not be entitled for the benefits provided under the provisions of the Act. 20. It is clear from the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, cited supra, that the apprentices, who are doing the regular work, ought to be considered as the employees of the establishment concerned and not mere apprentices. We are not inclined to interfere with the findings of facts, relating to the employment of the apprentices, at this stage. We are also of the considered view that the decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is no doubt that the apprentices in question would be covered under the provisions of the Act, as held by the learned single Judge of this Court, by his order, dated 26.4.2011, made in W.P.No.1280 of 2011. 21. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the findings of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 26.4.2011, made in W.P.No.1280 of 2011. 22. Accordingly, the present writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.