2004 (9) TMI 653 - SC - Indian Laws

Termination 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.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. Whether the termination of the appellant's services was legal and justified.

Summary:

Issue 1: Definition of Workman

The appellant was appointed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) as an Apprentice Development Officer on 16.7.1987. The terms of the appointment included a one-year apprenticeship, after which satisfactory performance could lead to appointment as a Development Officer on probation. The appellant's services were terminated on 14.7.1988 under para 4 of the appointment offer. The appellant contended that this termination was retrenchment in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, raising an industrial dispute. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur, held that the appellant was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the High Court of Allahabad set aside this award, relying on the Constitution Bench decision in H.R. Adyanthaya and Others Vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. and Others, which held that S.K. Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandra and Another was rendered per incuriam and was no longer good law.

The Supreme Court noted that the appellant failed to provide evidence of performing skilled, unskilled, manual, technical, or operational duties. The offer of appointment and the Scheme clearly indicated that the appellant was an apprentice, not performing any of the jobs enumerated in Section 2(s) of the Act. The Court reiterated that an apprentice under the Apprentices Act, 1961, is not a worker, and the appellant did not meet the criteria to be considered a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court emphasized that the appellant must prove that he is employed in the establishment for the purpose of doing any work contemplated in the definition of workman, which he failed to do.

Issue 2: Legality of Termination

The appellant argued that upon the completion of the apprenticeship period, he was appointed as a probationary officer, which was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the appellant continued to work as an apprentice and was not appointed as a Probationary Development Officer. The Supreme Court agreed with the Tribunal's finding, stating that the appellant did not establish that his status had changed from apprentice to a workman. The Court further noted that the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is exhaustive and must be read in the context of the phrase it defines. The appellant's termination was in accordance with the terms of his apprenticeship, and he was not entitled to the relief claimed.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's judgment that the appellant was not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and that his termination was legal and justified.