JUDGMENT : This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant trainee conductor against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.07.2015 passed in W.P.No.63014/2009 allowing the writ petition filed by the North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’), by setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court in Reference No.21/2004 on 15.07.2008. 2. It is the case of the respondent/Corporation that the present appellant was appointed as a job trainee conductor in pursuance of the training order dated 09.12.1996 and was deputed to undergo training for a period of two years subject to eight terms and conditions. While he was working as a conductor, on 18.05.1999, he has failed to issue tickets and failed to collect the fare of Rs.3.50/each from 14 passengers. The Inspection Squad gave a report to the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority has issued a show cause notice to the appellant as to why action should not be taken against him. On the reply filed by the appellant to the Article of Charges, not being satisfied with the reply, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to hold an enquiry and appointed an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after holding an enquiry submitted a report holding that the appellant is guilty of charges leveled against him. Accordingly, a copy of the enquiry report was made available to the appellant and was directed to file objections, if any. The appellant did not file any objections to the said report. The Disciplinary Authority considering the entire material on record held that the misconduct of the appellant has been proved and accordingly, the name of the appellant was deleted from the select list and forfeited the right of the appellant for permanent employment in the Corporation. Accordingly, the appellant herein raised an Industrial Dispute and the matter was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court allowed the reference and set aside the order dated 20.11.2001 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and directed the Corporation to reinstate the appellant into service with full backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. 3. Accordingly, the appellant herein raised an Industrial Dispute and the matter was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court allowed the reference and set aside the order dated 20.11.2001 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and directed the Corporation to reinstate the appellant into service with full backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of the Labour Court, the respondent/Corporation filed Writ Petition No.63014/2009 before this Court contending that the order passed by the Labour Court was without any authority of law and the Labour Court failed to take note of the fact that the appellant could not be considered as a Labourer as he was only a ‘trainee conductor’ who was undergoing training in the Corporation and as such, the dispute raised by the ‘trainee candidate’ could not be considered as an Industrial Dispute and the Labour Court ought not to have allowed the Reference. The learned Single Judge of this Court, considering the entire material on record, by the impugned order dated 10.07.2015 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court holding that Labour Court was not justified in accepting the reference. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present intra Court appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties to the lis. 5. Shri Satish M.S., learned counsel for the appellant trainee conductor contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not maintainable in law as the same was passed in haste and without appreciating the contentions of the appellant. He further contended that the impugned order passed is without appreciating the facts of the case and without verifying the fact that the appellant has attained the status of ‘permanent employee’ in the Corporation, even then illegally he is treated as a Job Trainee conductor. He further contended that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P.No.100369/2014 dated 18.08.2014 (Santosh K.Menasinkai Vs. The Management of NEKRTC) and held that the appellant being ‘trainee conductor’, the Labour Court was not justified in accepting the reference. He further contended that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P.No.100369/2014 dated 18.08.2014 (Santosh K.Menasinkai Vs. The Management of NEKRTC) and held that the appellant being ‘trainee conductor’, the Labour Court was not justified in accepting the reference. In fact, as the appellant herein has completed 240 days in the Corporation as a Conductor preceding the date of his termination and that the moment the said 240 days are completed, the appellant is entitled for the benefit under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) as an continuous employee and thereby he comes within the definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2 (s) of the Act. He further contended that once the appellant becomes workman in the respondent/Corporation, the reference was maintainable before the Labour Court and that the learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that the Reference was not maintainable at all. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is perverse, capricious and against eye of law and suffers from legal infirmities. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, Shri Shivakumar Badawadagi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation while justifying the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, brought to our notice the temporary appointment order of the appellant which was filed along with a memo dated 13.03.2020, wherein the training order dt.09.12.1996 clearly depicts that he was selected as a ‘temporary conductor’ and was deputed to undergo training for a period of two years subject to certain conditions one of the condition being that during the training period or extended training period, without any notice, he can be removed from training; if he is found not capable of being trained, if he failed to pass any tests during training period and if he failed to show inclination to be trained. He would further submit that the appellant was appointed on temporary basis in terms of Regulation 12 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982. The temporary selection for the post of conductor was before his appointment on probation. Therefore, he cannot be called as ‘Corporation Servant’ or as ‘workman’ as contemplated under the provisions of Section 2 (s) of the Act. He would further submit that the appellant had involved in almost 32 cases of not issuing the tickets. The temporary selection for the post of conductor was before his appointment on probation. Therefore, he cannot be called as ‘Corporation Servant’ or as ‘workman’ as contemplated under the provisions of Section 2 (s) of the Act. He would further submit that the appellant had involved in almost 32 cases of not issuing the tickets. He would further contend that even before completion of the training period, the appellant had indulged in such activities which is contrary to the Regulations. The Corporation after initiating disciplinary proceedings has rightly deleted the name of the appellant from the select list and in the absence of any appointment order being issued, he cannot be called as ‘Corporation Servant’ and consequently, cannot become a ‘workman’. The reference made before the Labour Court was not maintainable and the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the order passed by the Labour Court. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the appeal. 7. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the only point that would arise in the present inter court appeal is: “Whether the learned Single Judge is justified in setting aside the reference order passed by the Labour Court on 15.07.2008 in Reference No.21/2004, by holding the appellant being a ‘trainee conductor’ is not a ‘corporation servant’ in the facts and circumstances of the present case?” 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire material available on record carefully. 9. It is undisputed fact that the appellant was appointed as ‘trainee conductor’ by training order dated 09.12.1996 and was deputed to undergo training for a period of two years subject to certain terms and conditions; (i) that during the training period or extended training period, without any notice, he can be removed from training; (ii) if he is found not capable of being trained; (iii) if he failed to pass any tests during training period and (iv) if he failed to show inclination to be trained. 10. Admittedly, according to the respondent/Corporation, the appellant was caught red-handed by a checking squad on 11.05.1999 as he failed to issue tickets and failed to collect fare of Rs.3.50/each from 14 passengers and the checking squad gave a report to the Disciplinary Authority. 10. Admittedly, according to the respondent/Corporation, the appellant was caught red-handed by a checking squad on 11.05.1999 as he failed to issue tickets and failed to collect fare of Rs.3.50/each from 14 passengers and the checking squad gave a report to the Disciplinary Authority. Based on the report, the Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice to the appellant as to why action should not be taken against him. Not being satisfied with the reply given by the appellant, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to hold an enquiry and appointed an Enquiry Officer. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report. Admittedly, the appellant did not file any objections to the said report. Thus, the Disciplinary Authority held that the conduct of the appellant had been proved and accordingly, deleted his name from the select list and forfeited the right of the appellant for permanent employment in the Corporation. 11. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2 (s) of the Act, the reference before the Labour Court was maintainable; a plain reading of the training order dated 09.12.1996 selecting him as a ‘trainee conductor’ on temporary basis and deputing him to undergo training for a period of two years subject to certain conditions, leave no room for doubt that he had not been appointed on permanent basis in the services of the Corporation. It was only after completion of satisfactory training, he could have been considered for appointment provided there is a vacant post and he being found suitable by the recruitment committee as contemplated under Regulation 12 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment Regulations), 1982, which reads as under: “12. Training (1) The candidate who is selected by the Selection Authority and whose name is placed in the select list of candidates is liable to be called upon to undergo such training on such terms and condition for such categories of post as may be prescribed by the Corporation before his appointment on probation. 2) Any candidate who fails to report for the training prescribed in Sub-Regulation (1) or who fails to SATISFACTORILY COMPLETE such Training will forfeit his claim for appointment to the post for which he is placed on the select list.” 12. 2) Any candidate who fails to report for the training prescribed in Sub-Regulation (1) or who fails to SATISFACTORILY COMPLETE such Training will forfeit his claim for appointment to the post for which he is placed on the select list.” 12. Admittedly, in the present case, even before completion of the training period, the appellant had involved himself in misconduct of not issuing tickets to 14 passengers of Rs.3.50/each. Apart from this, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation that there were such other 32 cases of not issuing tickets and not collecting fare, out of which 25 cases came to be closed imposing minor penalty on the appellant and still 7 cases are pending. The ‘training order’ clearly stipulates that no right had been vested on the appellant for appointment to a permanent post. 13. A division bench of this Court while considering an identical issue in W.A.No.100369/2014 disposed of on 18.08.2014 (Santosh K.Menasinkai Vs. the Management of NEKRTC), held that a trainee is not a ‘corporation servant’. The said order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court is subsequently followed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.100383/2014 disposed of on 15.10.2014 (The Management of NEKRTC Vs. Raju S.Jaydi), which was the subject before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP 11117/2015. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order dated 31.07.2017 dismissed the said SLP and the same has reached its finality. Once the appellant was selected on a temporary basis as a ‘trainee conductor’ and was deputed to undergo training for a period of two years and during the training period, he has been removed from select list, he cannot be considered as ‘Corporation Servant’ since a corporation servant would not come under the definition of ‘workman’ as stipulated under the provisions of Section 2 (s) of the Act as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the appellant into the post held by him with all consequential benefits, suffers from error apparent on the face of the record and it cannot be sustained. The learned Judge considering the dictum of the coordinate bench of this Court has rightly held that the appellant being a ‘trainee conductor’ was not a ‘Corporation Servant’ and rightly set aside the order passed by the Labour Court by allowing the writ petition filed by the Corporation. The learned Judge considering the dictum of the coordinate bench of this Court has rightly held that the appellant being a ‘trainee conductor’ was not a ‘Corporation Servant’ and rightly set aside the order passed by the Labour Court by allowing the writ petition filed by the Corporation. 14. For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the present appeal has to be answered in affirmative holding that the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition filed by the Corporation and setting aside the order of the Labour Court. The appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in the present intra Court appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of any merit.