statement contended that four workmen viz., Mr.Srinivas.K.M, Mr.Shivaprakash, Mr.Mahadevaiah., and Mr.Manjunatha, were working in the press shop, one Mr.Naveen, was working in the winding department, one Mr.Vinay Kumar was working in tool room and one Mr.Ambareesh was working on CNC machine and that they were dismissed from service by the petitioner. The petitioner filed counter statement contending inter alia, that the reference is not maintainable either in law or on facts and also contended that the company has not indulged in any unfair labour practice. The petitioner contended that the workmen referred to above by the respondent union were engaged as trainees and were given training for a stipulated period. Depending upon the existence of vacancy, the trainees would be appointed on the rolls of the company. It is also contended that, before completion of their training, these workmen gave a representation for extension of their training. However, the workmen referred to above did not improve in various areas and when their training period came to an end, they were paid fifteen days stipend for each year of completed service and notice pay of one month and their training was discontinued, among other grounds the petitioner prayed for the rejection of
