Writ application was filed by the respondent questioning the determination.
By its resolution dated 21.1.1990 after interviewing 270 applicants, 45 persons were selected.
Therefore, the trainees were apprentices engaged under the Standing Orders of the establishment.
Notice was issued by the appellant purportedly under Section 7 A of the Act in respect of the said 45 trainees.
By order dated 15.5.1991 the appellant held that the trainees were employees for the purpose of the Act and the respondent is liable to pay the quantified amount.
By a companybined order dated 3.2.1990, Managing Director numberified the 45 persons who were selected.
It was also stipulated that if any trainee leaves the factory within one year, he was required to refund the amount received by him as stipend.
Engaged as an apprentice, number being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 52 of 1961 or under the Standing Orders of the establishment.
Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench held that 45 persons who were selected as trainees were number companyered by Employees Provident Fund Misc.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
