Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2004 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (9) TMI 653 - SUPREME COURTTermination of services - contravention of Section 25F - Whether the Appellant is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act - Applicability of the Apprentices Act, 1961 - HELD THAT:- The expression 'Apprentice' has been included in the definition of 'workman' contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but by reason of a subsequent Parliamentary legislation, namely, Apprentices Act, 1961 (the 1961 Act), the term 'apprentice' has been defined in Section 2(aa) to mean "a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated trade in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship. Section 18 of the 1961 Act provides that apprentices are trainees and not workers save as otherwise provided in the Act. 'Apprentice', as noticed, is defined to mean a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training pursuant to a contract of apprenticeship. How a contract of apprenticeship would be entered into is to be found in sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the 1961 Act. The embargos placed in this regard are: (i) entering into a contract of apprenticeship with a minor in which event the contract must be executed by his guardian; and (ii) on such terms or conditions which shall not be inconsistent with any provision of the Act or any rule framed thereunder. A 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 must not only establish that he is not covered by the provisions of the Apprenticeship Act but must further establish that he is employed in the establishment for the purpose of doing any work contemplated in the definition. Even in a case where a period of apprenticeship is extended, a further written contract carrying out such intention need not be executed. But in a case where a person is allowed to continue without extending the period of apprenticeship either expressly or by necessary implication and regular work is taken from him, he may become a workman. A person who claims himself to be an apprentice has certain rights and obligations under the statute. In case any person raises a contention that his status has been changed from apprentice to a workman, he must plead and prove the requisite facts. In absence of any pleading or proof that either by novation of the contract or by reason of the conduct of the parties, such a change has been brought about, an apprentice cannot be held to be workman. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's judgment that the Appellant was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that his termination did not contravene Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court also confirmed the applicability of the Apprentices Act, 1961, to the Appellant's case, emphasizing that he remained an apprentice throughout his tenure.
|