9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (10) TMI 600 - SC - Indian LawsDefinition and status of 'Workman' and 'Apprentice' under relevant laws - Whether a person who is an apprentice within the meaning of Section 2(aa) of the said Act would become a workman and, consequently, would be entitled to the benefits of various labour laws in the event of breaches of the terms of the said contract as also non-registration thereof - HELD THAT - With a view to become a workman, not only the apprentice has to show that he comes within the purview of the definition of the term 'workman' as contained in Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but he must further plead and establish that his job is such which fulfills the requirements of the said term. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that an 'apprentice' within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act would per se not be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. It is further not in dispute that in terms of Section 18 of the Act the apprentices being trainees and not workers would not be entitled to the benefits of provisions of any labour laws. It is no doubt true that the Apprenticeship Advisor has certain statutory duties and functions as contained in Sections 4(5), 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15 and 29. It is furthermore true that Sections 19 and 20 provide for certain obligations upon the employer to obtain approval of the Apprenticeship Advisor and forward the records to the concerned authorities. Similarly, the rules framed under Section 37 of the Act confer certain benefits upon the apprentices. If an employer fails to perform his statutory duties or deprives an apprentice from the benefits to which he is entitled to, the Apprenticeship Advisor can file an appropriate complaint before a competent court of law. In terms of Section 31 of the Act the only penalty which can be imposed upon the employer is fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees but may extend to three thousand rupees. Violation of the provisions of the Act, therefore, does not result in imprisonment. It is not in dispute that the list of apprentices used to be sent by the Apprenticeship Adviser himself and, thus, presumably the preliminary scrutiny in that regard had been made by the said authority. If in a given case, as noticed hereinbefore, the employer fails to get the contract of apprenticeship registered and/or fails to carry on his obligations in terms of Section 11 of the Act, he faces penal consequences in terms of Section 31 of the Act. The employer, furthermore, is liable to pay compensation for termination of apprenticeship as would appear from Rule 6 of the Apprenticeship Rules, 1962, which reads thus Compensation for termination of apprenticeship.- Whereas the contract of apprenticeship is terminated through failure on the part of any employer in carrying out the terms and conditions thereof, such employer shall be liable to pay the apprentice compensation of an amount equivalent to is three months' last drawn stipend; and when the said termination is due to failure on the part of an apprentice in the above manner, then a training cost of an amount equivalent to his three months last drawn stipend shall be made recoverable from such apprentice or from his guardian in case he is minor. It is not a case where any of the apprentices repudiated the contract. No argument has also been advanced to the effect that the contract of apprenticeship was merely a camouflage or a ruse so as to establish that in effect and substance, while appointing a person as an apprentice, the employer has been taking work from him malafide or with a view to deprive him from the benefits of the labour legislations, nor any material in respect thereof had been brought on records. We are, therefore, are of the considered view that non-registration of the contract of apprenticeship would not render the same nugatory.
Issues Involved:
1. Definition and status of 'Workman' and 'Apprentice' under relevant laws. 2. Impact of non-registration of apprenticeship contracts. 3. Legal consequences of breaches of apprenticeship contracts. 4. Applicability of labour laws to apprentices. Summary: Definition and Status of 'Workman' and 'Apprentice': Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines 'Workman' to include apprentices. However, the Apprentices Act, 1961, a special statute, prevails over the general statute, and an apprentice under Section 2(aa) of the Apprentices Act is not considered a workman. Section 18 of the Apprentices Act explicitly states that apprentices are trainees and not workers, thus not entitled to benefits under labour laws. Impact of Non-Registration of Apprenticeship Contracts: Section 4(1) of the Apprentices Act mandates the execution of a contract of apprenticeship before training begins. Sub-sections (4) and (5) require registration of the contract with the Apprenticeship Advisor. Despite the imperative language, the court held that non-registration does not render the contract void or illegal. The amendment in 1973 aimed to avoid delays in training commencement, indicating that the provision for registration is directory, not mandatory. Legal Consequences of Breaches of Apprenticeship Contracts: Breaches of the terms of the apprenticeship contract may lead to penal consequences but do not invalidate the contract. The Apprenticeship Advisor can take suitable steps under the Act or rules but cannot declare the contract void ab initio. Section 20 provides for dispute resolution between an apprentice and the employer, and the employer faces penalties under Section 31 for non-compliance. Applicability of Labour Laws to Apprentices: The court emphasized that an apprentice remains an apprentice despite non-registration or breaches by the employer. The status of an apprentice does not change to that of a workman due to non-registration. The court rejected the notion that breaches by the employer convert the apprenticeship into a contract of employment. The definition of 'Apprentice' does not require registration for the benefits of the Apprentices Act to apply. The court concluded that non-registration of the contract of apprenticeship does not render it nugatory and upheld the judgment of Mathur, J.
|
