1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2052/2005 Mahavir Prasad v. Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar & Anr. Date of Order :: 13th August, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Rajesh Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K.Lohra, for the respondents. .... The award dated 23.12.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Sriganganagar is challenged by way of filing this petition for writ. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that as per the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”) an apprentice is also a workman and further that even if it is assumed that an apprentice is not a workman then too the petitioner continued in service for a period of one year as a workman with the employer and, therefore, compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 was necessary. I do not find any substance in the argument advanced in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh & Anr., reported in (2004)8 SCC 402. 2 In the case aforesaid Hon'ble Supreme court held that an apprentice undergoing apprenticeship as per the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961 cannot be treated as a workman as per the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947. In the case aforesaid it was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the onus is upon the apprentice to prove that he has acquired the status of the workman. In the instant matter the employer has adequately proved that the term of apprenticeship was extended by a period of one year and no material is available on record on basis of that it can be said that the petitioner acquired the status of the workman. For the reasons above, the award impugned does not require any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ, therefore, is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.