JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. Usha Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents workmen. 2. The present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India assails the reference made to the Labour Court-I, Kanpur and being registered as Adjudication Case No.46 of 1994 and the award dated 20/25.07.1995, received on 30.08.1995. 3. Petitioners before this Court are the electricity department, supplying the electricity within the district Kanpur. Respondent no. 4 was engaged as a Trade Apprentice in the trade of Clerk (General) for one year w.e.f. 01.07.1983 to 31.06.1984. Respondent no. 5 was engaged as Trade Apprentice in the trade of Clerk (Commercial) for a period 19.10.1984 to 18.10.1985, under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act of 1961’). An industrial dispute was raised on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5 through respondent no. 3 U.P. Bijli Karmchari Sangh. 4. The State Government referred the matter exercising power under Section 4 (k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act of 1947’) to the Labour Court, Kanpur as to whether the termination of services by the petitioners employer was lawful or not. By the award dated 20/25.07.1995 the Labour Court held the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to be the workmen of the petitioners and without following the due procedure as envisaged under the Act of 1947 their services were wrongly terminated. The award provided for the reinstatement of both the respondent nos. 4 and 5 from the date of award and also provided for the payment of the amount from 01.07.1992 till the date of award, the period during which the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were out of employment. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the engagement of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 was under the Act of 1961 and cannot be considered as an workmen, as Section 2 (aa) read with Section 2 (aaa) defines apprentice and apprenticeship training. Section 2 (r) further defines a ‘worker’ which does not include an apprentice. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the engagement of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 was as an apprentice with the petitioners and not as a workmen. Section 2 (r) further defines a ‘worker’ which does not include an apprentice. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the engagement of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 was as an apprentice with the petitioners and not as a workmen. The Labour Court had wrongly arrived at finding that as apprenticeship contract was registered after five years, they cannot be considered as apprentice and are liable to be treated as a workmen. 6. She further contended that the Director (Works) ITI Kanpur, who had deposed before the Labour Court as EW-2, had categorically submitted that both the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were the Trade Apprentice registered in the documents but their bond form was not available. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of Apex Court in case of U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Shiv Mohan Singh and another, (2004) 8 SCC 402 , wherein the controversy as to the applicability of the labour laws in case of an apprentice has been clarified and has been held that both the Act of 1961 and the Act of 1947 operate in different field. 7. Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents workmen, submitted that Sub-section 4 of Section 4 of the Act of 1961 mandates that contract of apprenticeship which has been entered has to be sent to the Apprenticeship Advisor for registration. In the present case no such form was sent for registration, nor the initial appointment which was for a fixed term, was under the Act of 1961. According to him, the procedure envisaged under Section 6-N of the Act of 1947 was not followed by the employer/petitioners before terminating the services of the respondents workmen and the Labour Court had correctly arrived at the finding. 8. He then contended that the statement made by the Director (Works) ITI Kanpur clearly establishes that the contract form was registered in the year 1989 though the workmen as according to the petitioners was between the period 1983-84 and 1984-85. 9. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. The short controversy which needs to be adjudicated by this Court is as to whether the provisions of the Act of 1961 or the provisions of the Act of 1947 will apply in the present set of case. 11. It is admitted to both the parties that both the respondent nos. 10. The short controversy which needs to be adjudicated by this Court is as to whether the provisions of the Act of 1961 or the provisions of the Act of 1947 will apply in the present set of case. 11. It is admitted to both the parties that both the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were engaged in the service between the period 01.07.1983 to 31.06.1984 and 19.10.1984 to 18.10.1985. The sole dispute is as to whether the respondent no. 4 Ram Shanker Agnihotri, was engaged as Trade Apprentice in the trade of Clerk (General) or was simplicitor appointed as a Clerk (General). Similarly, the respondent no. 5, Devendra Kumar Nigam, who, according to the petitioners, was engaged as Trade Apprentice in the trade of Clerk (Commercial) from 19.10.1984 to 18.10.1985, but according to the workmen, he was posted as Clerk (Commercial) under the Senior Accounts Officer at the head office of petitioner no. 1. 12. From the pleadings of parties, it is clear that both the sides have categorically denied the claims and counter claims, but the Director (Works) ITI, who was deposed as EW-2 before the Labour Court had specifically submitted that respondent no. 4 Ram Shanker Agnihotri was registered as a trade apprentice according to the government documents between 25.06.1983 to 24.06.1984, the registration was done on 15.02.1989, and moreover the bond form was not available. 13. Similarly, the said officer had also deposed that respondent no. 5 Devendra Kumar Nigam was also registered as apprentice during the period 19.10.1984 to 18.10.1985 but the records are not available. From the reading of the statement made by the concerned officer, it is clear that both the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were engaged as Trade Apprentice by the petitioners for the relevant period mentioned therein. The only fact is that the registration was done on 15.02.1989. The Labour Court while making the award, on the basis of the statement, had also found that both the respondent nos. 4 and 5 cannot be treated as an apprentice undergoing apprenticeship training as the contract was registered after five years and held them to be workmen. 14. The only fact is that the registration was done on 15.02.1989. The Labour Court while making the award, on the basis of the statement, had also found that both the respondent nos. 4 and 5 cannot be treated as an apprentice undergoing apprenticeship training as the contract was registered after five years and held them to be workmen. 14. The finding recorded by the Labour Court is in teeth of the provisions of Section 2 (aa) read with Section 2 (r), which defines ‘apprentice’ and further defines a ‘worker’ who is employed for wages in any kind of work but does not include an apprentice. 15. Section 18 of the Act of 1961 clearly exclude the applicability of the labour laws in relation to an apprentice, meaning thereby that neither the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 nor the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are applicable in the matters dealing with the apprenticeship. As the Act of 1947 is a general law, while the Act of 1961 is a special statute and it will prevail over the general law and Sub-clause 3 of Section 18 clearly provides for the non applicability of such labour laws in the matters covered under the Act of 1961. 16. The controversy in regard to the applicability of labour laws i.e. the Act of 1947 in the matters relating to apprentice and the dispute arising therein under the Act of 1961 has been set to rest by the Apex Court and is no more res integra, as in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board (Supra) the Apex Court has held that the Act of 1961 will prevail over the Act of 1947 and persons who are engaged as an apprentice cannot be considered as a workmen. 17. Mere non-compliance of Sub-section 4 of Section 4 of the Act of 1961, as raised by the respondents’ counsel, would not negate the effect of the Act of 1961 as the basic engagement of respondent nos. 4 and 5 was that of a Trade Apprentice for a fixed period of time and it came to an end after the expiry of the said period. 18. The Labour Court was not correct in holding the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to be workmen simplicitor on the basis of the registration of the apprenticeship contract after five years. 4 and 5 was that of a Trade Apprentice for a fixed period of time and it came to an end after the expiry of the said period. 18. The Labour Court was not correct in holding the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to be workmen simplicitor on the basis of the registration of the apprenticeship contract after five years. Whether a contract of apprenticeship is registered or not, will not change the character of engagement as an apprentice. Once the employer has come up with a case demonstrating it through documents that the engagement was as an apprentice, the Labour Court had wrongly presumed the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to be the workmen in absence of non registration of apprenticeship contract. The Apex Court in case of U.P. State Electricity Board (Supra) has clarified the said position as to the non registration of a contract. Relevant paragraph nos. 51 and 56 are extracted hereasunder; “51. Therefore, now going back to the basic question that in the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions whether non-registration of the contract can render the contract void or illegal and what is the result thereof. From the scheme of things it is more than apparent that the Apprentices Act, 1961 is a complete code in itself and it lays down the conditions of the apprentices, what shall be their tenure, what shall be their terms and conditions and what are their obligations and what are the obligations of the employer. It also lays down that the apprentices are trainees and not workmen and if any dispute arises then the settlement has to be done by the Apprenticeship Adviser as per Section 20 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and his decision thereof is final. Now, under the scheme of these things, it clearly shows that the nature and character of the apprentice is nothing but that of a trainee and he is supposed to enter into a contract and by virtue of that contract he is to serve for a fixed period on a fixed stipend. This will not change the character of the apprentice to that of a workman under the employer where he is undergoing the apprentice training. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 only lays down that such contract should be registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser. This will not change the character of the apprentice to that of a workman under the employer where he is undergoing the apprentice training. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 only lays down that such contract should be registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser. But by non-registration of the contract, the position of the apprentice is not changed to that of a workman. It is more than clear from the scheme of the Act, the apprentice is recruited for the purpose of training as defined in Section 2(aa) of the Apprentices Act, 1961, that an apprentice is a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship and the apprenticeship training has been defined under Section 2(aaa). That clearly speaks that an apprentice is to undergo apprenticeship training in any industry or establishment under the employer in pursuance of the contract and in terms of the conditions pertaining to that particular trade. Section 6 lays down that what shall be the period of training and Section 7 very clearly shows that the contract of apprenticeship shall terminate on the expiry of the period of apprenticeship training. Therefore, it is more than clear that the nature and character of the apprentice is that of a trainee only and on the expiry of the training there is no corresponding obligation on the part of the employer to employ him which is also very clear from the provisions of Section 7 that the apprenticeship training shall terminate on the expiry of the period of training. It further makes clear that by virtue of Section 18 that the apprentice trainees are not workers. It clearly lays down that if an apprentice trainee is undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated trade in an establishment, he shall be a trainee and not a worker. It further contemplates that the provisions of labour laws shall not apply in relation to such apprentice. In this connection reference to definition of workman given in Section 2(r) also emphasis that it will not include apprentice. Section 20 also lays down that how a dispute arising under this Apprentices Act, 1961 can be settled. The authority for resolving such a dispute has been given to the Apprenticeship Adviser. Therefore, any dispute which arises with the apprentice and the employer then remedy has been provided under this Act and not by way of resorting to the Labour Court. The authority for resolving such a dispute has been given to the Apprenticeship Adviser. Therefore, any dispute which arises with the apprentice and the employer then remedy has been provided under this Act and not by way of resorting to the Labour Court. Therefore, throughout the Act stress has been laid that the apprentices are never being treated as workers. Simply because the contract has not been registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser, that will not change the nature and character of the apprentices. It is true that sub-section (4) of Section 4 lays down that the contract of apprenticeship should be registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser so that the Apprenticeship Adviser can monitor and keep a record thereof. Just because the contract of apprenticeship is not registered that will not render the contract as invalid resulting in change of status of an apprentice to that of a workman. Section 21 further lays down that after the completion of the training of the apprentice, an incumbent will have to appear for a test to be conducted by the National Council to determine his proficiency in the designated trade in which he has undergone his apprenticeship training. Therefore, had there been an intention of the Legislature to confer them the status of a workman then all the provisions would not have been warranted at all. Section 22 makes it abundantly clear that at the end of the apprenticeship training, it is not obligatory on the part of the employer to offer an employment to an apprentice who has completed the period of apprenticeship. It is only if the terms of the contract of the apprenticeship lays down a condition that on successful completion of an apprenticeship training, an employer will offer him an employment then it is obligatory on the part of the employer to do so. If there is no such condition stipulated in the apprenticeship contract then the employer cannot be compelled to offer employment to such apprentice. At the same time, it is not obligatory on the part of apprentice to serve that employer if there is no such stipulation to this effect. So it is mutual thing & it depends on the terms of contract. At the same time, it is not obligatory on the part of apprentice to serve that employer if there is no such stipulation to this effect. So it is mutual thing & it depends on the terms of contract. The survey of all these provisions of the Acts and the Rules as mentioned above, makes it clear that the character & status of apprentice remains the same & he does not become workman and labour laws are not attracted. 56. It is also necessary to mention here that the definition of the word 'workman' as given in Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Both the definitions includes apprentice. But the expression appearing in Section 2 (z) of the U.P Industrial Disputes Act and Industrial Disputes Act 1947 are not applicable to the apprentices appointed under the Apprentices Act, 1961. The Apprentices Act is a code in itself and it clearly stipulates that in Section 2 (aa) apprentice means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of contract of training and the workers are employed for wages for work done by them. Section 18 clearly mentions that the apprentices are not workmen and "the provisions of any law with respect to labour law shall not apply or in relation to such apprentices". Therefore, reading of definition of apprentice in Sections 2(aa) and 2(r) read with Section 18 of the Apprentices Act leaves no manner of doubt that this Act which is special Act it does not cover the apprentices and it precludes the application of any other labour laws, i.e. U.P. Industrial Disputes Act & Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. When both these Acts are not applicable then labour court/industrial Tribunal will not have any jurisdiction to entertain any dispute arising therefrom. The application of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 automatically stands excluded. 19. When both these Acts are not applicable then labour court/industrial Tribunal will not have any jurisdiction to entertain any dispute arising therefrom. The application of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 automatically stands excluded. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the State Government was not competent to make reference under Section 4 (k) of the Act of 1947 and the Labour Court miserably failed while making the award when a specific plea was raised as to the maintainability of the proceedings in view of the fact that it did not have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute in view of Section 20 of the Act of 1961 and no case under Section 6N of the Act of 1947 was made out. 20. In view of the above the reference made to the Labour Court-I, Kanpur and the award dated 20/25.07.1995 passed by the respondent no. 2 are unsustainable in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed. 21. Writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.