Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(v) Section 2(i) of The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, defines a worker to mean a worker in any establishment or employment in respect of which the Act has come into force.
(vi) Section 2(l) of The Factories Act, 1948, defines a worker to mean a person employed directly or through an agency, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer, whether for remuneration or not, in any manufacturing process or any other kind of work incidental to or connected with, the manufacturing process.
(vii) Section 2(s) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, defines a workman to mean any person, including an apprentice, employed in any industry to do any manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work, for hire or reward.

52. Strong reliance is placed by the petitioners, in this regard, on the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Electricity Board case {2004 (8) SCC 402}. In the said decision, as pointed out earlier, the Supreme Court held that the registration of the contract of apprenticeship is only directory and not mandatory and that the non-registration of the contract will not make an apprentice, a workman.

53. In his separate but concurring opinion, Hon'ble S.B.Sinha, J., held in paragraph-89 of the said decision, that the Apprentices Act, is a complete Code in itself. But the question that arose for consideration in that case, was pointed in paragraph-90 of the said decision as follows:-

"114. 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 mala fide or with a view to deprive him from the benefits of the labour legislations, nor any material in respect thereof had been brought on record."
"115. Whether the relationship of an employer and workman or an employer and an apprentice had been brought about, is essentially a question of fact. The Court while determining such a dispute must consider the factual matrix involved therein in the light of the provisions of the said Act. Once it is held that a contract of apprenticeship entered into by and between the employer and the workman is a genuine one and not a camouflage or a ruse, a presumption would arise that the person concerned is not a workman."
(b) The definite case of the petitioners is that the persons for whose benefit the impugned notification has been issued, are not employees, within the meaning of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, but are only apprentices. But under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, even an apprentice is a workman. This is why, even according to the petitioners, some of the disputes include the conditions of service of apprentices. But admittedly, not a single dispute now pending nor any award now in operation, relates to the apprentices, engaged under the Sumangali scheme or Thirumagal Thirumana Thittam. The impugned notification shows that it was primarily issued taking into account their plight. Therefore it is clear that one section of the work force or population in the Textile Mills, is not covered by a dispute or award. Consequently, the precondition found in the second part of Section 3(2-A) that the dispute or award should relate to all employees, is not satisfied.