Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Apprentices Act, 1961 governs the terms and conditions of engagement of apprentices for their training. Section 4 (1) of the Act provides that ''no person shall be engaged as an apprentice to undergo apprenticeship training in a designated trade unless such person or, if he is a minor, his guardian, has entered into a contract of apprenticeship with the employer.' He further contended that the Labour Court in its judgment has observed that a contract was reduced into writing over which these apprentices signed also but no signature was made by the employer and further it was not sent to the apprenticeship adviser for registration' whereas sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act provides that ''every contract of Apprenticeship Adviser entered into sub-section (1) shall be sent by the employer within such period as may be prescribed to the Apprenticeship Adviser for registration. Since the employer did not sign over the contract it cannot be said to be contract enforceable under the law. Therefore, these apprentices cannot be said to be engaged as apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961. On the other hand, the word' workmen' as defined under Section 2 (z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 includes an apprentice. Thus, these apprentices being not covered under the Apprentices Act, 1961 are definitely covered under the definition of the ''workmen.' Therefore, the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall apply in the matter of retrenchment. It is further stated that thus he was fully entitled to the protection of the provisons of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, in the event of termination of his services but no provisions of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act have been complied with and the Labour Court has failed to appreciate the provisions of the Act. Hence order impugned deserves to be quashed.

In support of his submission he cited following decisions;

(1)Hanuman Prasad Chaudhary and others Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board , Jaipur reported in 1987 (55) F.L.R. Rajasthan High Court.

The fact of this case is completely different to the case on hand, therefore, I am of the view that it would not be helpful to the petitioner.

However, on scrutiny of the Judgment, I find that Rajasthan High Court held that the provisions of Section 18 of the Apprentices Act will prevail over the provisions contained in section 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Act relating to apprentices and an apprentice governed by the Apprentices Act cannot be regarded as a workman under Section 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The provisions of Section 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Act are analogous to the provisions of Section 2 ( Z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (2)Karuna Shankar Tripathi and others Vs State of U.P. and others reported in 1992 (10) L.C.D. page 249.

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months, and (C) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the State Government."

A plain reading of the definition of words '' retrenchment' and ''workman' shows that the workman has been defined as a person employed in any industry to do the work and retrenchment is a termination of service of a workman by the employer and provisions of Section 6 -N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act shall be attracted only in a case where the workman was employed in any industry and has been in a continuous service for not less than one year. Whereas the apprentice as defined under the Apprentices Act, 1961 means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship which has no significance of employment rather Section 18 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 provides that apprentice shall be a trainee and not a worker. In order to claim the right of workman the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act necessarily has to be applied whereas Section 18 (b) categorically provides that the provisions of any law with respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to such apprentice. Thus, it is clear that the apprenticeship is not an employment rather it is course of training.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has given much emphasis over Section 4 (1) of the Apprentices Act,1961 and submitted that unless a contract has been entered into between the apprentice and the employer, the engagement of an apprentice shall be in the form of employment and since the definition of workman under Section 2 (Z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act also includes the apprentices in absence of contract between the parties, the petitioner is covered under the definition of workmen.