Madras High Court
The Deputy Director vs Tidc India on 22 September, 2020
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
C.M.A.No.3948 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
C.M.A.No.3948 of 2019
The Deputy Director,
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
143, Sterling Road, Chennai – 34. .. Appellant
Versus
TIDC India,
(Unit of Tube Investments India Ltd.),
Post Box No.11, Ambattur,
Chennai – 53. .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 82(2) of Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948, praying to set aside the order of the Employees Insurance Court
(Principal Labour Court), Chennai, dated 20.04.2016 made in E.I.O.P.No.87 of 2016.
For Petitioner : Mrs.G.Narmadha
For Respondent : Mr.G.Anand for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
JUDGMENT
Heard Mrs.G.Narmadha, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr.G.Anand, for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., learned counsel for the respondent, through Video Conferencing due to COVID-19 pandemic.
2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Employees Insurance Court (Principal Labour Court), Chennai, in EIOP.No.87 of 2006, dated 20.04.2016, in and by which, it is held that an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices http://www.judis.nic.in 1/4 C.M.A.No.3948 of 2019 Act or under the Standing Orders of the Company is excluded from the definition of employee as per Section Section 2(f) of the Provident Fund Act and therefore, when an apprentice is completely excluded from the definition of an employee, the question of payment of contribution by the employer is far from acceptance and consequently, ESI court held that the wages paid to the apprentices do not warrant payment of contribution. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
3. After some arguments of Mrs.Narmadha, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.G.Anand, learned counsel for the respondent, has placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court in T.I.Ccycles of India, Ambattur, Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madras [CMA.No.1015 of 1991, dated 17.12.1999] and has also placed yet another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore, Vs. Central Arecanut and Coca Marketing and Processing Coop. Ltd., Mangalore [(2006) 2 SCC 381].
4. In T.I.Cycles of India's case (cited supra), this Court held that the wages paid to the apprentices do not warrant payment of contribution, therefore, the demand of contribution made by the Employees State Insurance Corporation is wholly unsustainable.
5. In Central Arecanut & Coca Marketing and Processing Coop. Ltd. (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the trainees were only apprentices engaged under the http://www.judis.nic.in 2/4 C.M.A.No.3948 of 2019 Standing Orders of the Establishment, therefore, it cannot be said that the concerned trainees were employees in terms of Section 2(f) of the Act. Relevant portion of observation reads as follows:-
“13. In the case at hand, trainees were paid stipend during the period of training. They had no right to employment, nor any obligation to accept any employment, if offered by the employer. Therefore, the trainees were 'apprentices' engaged under the 'Standing Orders' of the establishment.
14. Above being the position, it cannot be said that the concerned 45 trainees were employees in terms of Section 2(f) of the Act. In other words, an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act or under the Standing Orders is excluded from the definition of an 'employee' as per Section 2(f) of the Act.
15. That being so, the view of the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be faulted.
16. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.”
6. The issue whether the trainees employed by the respondent/TIDC India, Chennai, can be construed as employees is no longer res-integra as it is covered by the aforesaid judgments holding that apprentices/trainees engaged under the Apprentices Act or under the Standing Orders are excluded from the definition of an employee as per Section 2(f) of the Act. Therefore, by following the said decisions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellant fails and it is dismissed accordingly. No Costs.
22.09.2020 rkm http://www.judis.nic.in 3/4 C.M.A.No.3948 of 2019 T.RAJA, J.
rkm To Employees Insurance Court, (Principal Labour Court), Chennai.
C.M.A.No.3948 of 2019
22.09.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 4/4