Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. The controversy with regard to the applicability of labour law i.e. Act of 1947 in the matters relating to Apprentice and the dispute arising therein under the Act of 1961 has been set at rest by the Apex Court and the same is no more res integra, as in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh and Ors. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 402 and it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para No. 51, 56 and 87 reads as under:

"51. Therefore, now going back to the basic question that in the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions whether non- registration of the contract can render the contract void or illegal and what is the result thereof. From the scheme of things it is more than apparent that the Apprentices Act, 1961 is a complete code in itself and it lays down the conditions of the apprentices, what shall be their tenure, what shall be their terms and conditions and what are their obligations and what are the obligations of the employer. It also lays down that the apprentices are trainees and not workmen and if any dispute arises then the settlement has to be done by (12 of 21) [CW-8182/2005] the Apprenticeship Adviser as per Section 20 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and his decision thereof is final. Now, under the scheme of these things, it clearly shows that the nature and character of the apprentice is nothing but that of a trainee and he is supposed to enter into a contract and by virtue of that contract he is to serve for a fixed period on a fixed stipend. This will not change the character of the apprentice to that of a workman under the employer where he is undergoing the apprentice training. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 only lays down that such contract should be registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser. But by non-registration of the contract, the position of the apprentice is not changed to that of a workman. It is more than clear from the scheme of the Act, the apprentice is recruited for the purpose of training as defined in Section 2(aa) of the Apprentices Act, 1961, that an apprentice is a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship and the apprenticeship training has been defined under Section 2(aaa). That clearly speaks that an apprentice is to undergo apprenticeship training in any industry or establishment under the employer in pursuance of the contract and in terms of the conditions pertaining to that particular trade. Section 6 lays down that what shall be the period of training and Section 7 very clearly shows that the contract of apprenticeship shall terminate on the expiry of the period of apprenticeship training. Therefore, it is more than clear that the nature and character of the apprentice is that of a trainee only and on the expiry of the training there is no corresponding obligation on the part of the employer to employ him which is also very clear from the provisions of Section 7 that the apprenticeship training shall terminate on the expiry of the period of training. It further makes clear that by virtue of Section 18 that the apprentice trainees are not workers. It clearly lays down that if an apprentice trainee is undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated trade in an establishment, he shall be a trainee and not a worker. It further contemplates that the provisions of labour laws shall not apply in relation to such apprentice. In this connection reference to definition of workman given in Section 2(r) also emphasis that it will not include apprentice. Section 20 also lays down that how a dispute arising under this Apprentices Act, 1961 can be settled. The authority for resolving such a dispute has been given to the Apprenticeship Adviser. Therefore, any dispute which arises with the apprentice and the employer then remedy has been (13 of 21) [CW-8182/2005] provided under this Act and not by way of resorting to the Labour Court. Therefore, throughout the Act stress has been laid that the apprentices are never being treated as workers. Simply because the contract has not been registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser, that will not change the nature and character of the apprentices. It is true that Sub-section (4) of Section 4 lays down that the contract of apprenticeship should be registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser so that the Apprenticeship Adviser can monitor and keep a record thereof. Just because the contract of apprenticeship is not registered that will not render the contract as invalid resulting in change of status of an apprentice to that of a workman. Section 21 further lays down that after the completion of the training of the apprentice, an incumbent will have to appear for a test to be conducted by the National Council to determine his proficiency in the designated trade in which he has undergone his apprenticeship training. Therefore, had there been an intention of the Legislature to confer them the status of a workman then all the provisions would not have been warranted at all. Section 22 makes it abundantly clear that at the end of the apprenticeship training, it is not obligatory on the part of the employer to offer an employment to an apprentice who has completed the period of apprenticeship . It is only if the terms of the contract of the apprenticeship lays down a condition that on successful completion of an apprenticeship training, an employer will offer him an employment then it is obligatory on the part of the employer to do so. If there is no such condition stipulated in the apprenticeship contract then the employer cannot be compelled to offer employment to such apprentice. At the same time, it is not obligatory on the part of apprentice to serve that employer if there is no such stipulation to this effect. So it is mutual thing & it depends on the terms of contract. The survey of all these provisions of the Acts and the Rules as mentioned above, makes it clear that the character & status of apprentice remains the same & he does not become workman and labour laws are not attracted.

21. Even this issue came before this Court also in the matter of Hanuman Prasad Choudhary and ors. Vs. Rajasthan Electricity Board and ors. reported in 1985(2) WLN 219 and it was held in para 11 to 15 and 18 as under:-

"11. In my opinion the definition of "workman" as contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be read in isolation and while construing the said provision, one cannot lose sight of the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Apprentices Act. The provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act were substituted by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1956. The Apprentices Act was enacted by Parliament thereafter. In Section 18 of the Apprentices Act, it has been expressly laid down that save as other wise provided in the said Act, every apprentice undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated trade in an establishment shall be a trainee and not a worker. The said Section further lays down that the provisions of any law with respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to such apprentice. This would show that in Section 18 of the Apprentices Act the Parliament has unequivocally declared that a person who is an apprentice under the Apprentices Act is not a worker and the provisions of any law in respect of labour shall not apply to such a person. Industrial Disputes Act is undoubtedly a law with respect to labour in as much as it has been enacted for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes mentioned therein. This would imply that in view of Section 18 of the Apprentices Act, provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act would not apply to the persons who are apprentices under the Apprentices Act. It would thus appear that there is apparent conflict between the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Section 18 of the Apprentices Act in as much as Section 2(s) postulates that an apprentice is a workman to whom the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act would be applicable whereas Section 18 of the Apprentices Act declares that an apprentice governed by the (18 of 21) [CW-8182/2005] Apprentices Act is not to be treated as a workman and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be applicable to him. In my view this conflict between the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Section 18 of the Apprentices Act can be resolved by applying the principle of harmonious construction so that each provision may operate without encroaching on the field of the other.

14. Apart from the aforesaid principle of harmonious construction, the conflict between the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Section 18 of the Apprentices Act can also be resolved by applying the principles of statutory interpretation that the operation of a prior general law may be curtailed by a subsequent particular law. Industrial Disputes Act is a general law applicable to all categories of (19 of 21) [CW-8182/2005] workmen whereas the Apprentices Act is a particular law enacted with special reference to apprentice, The definition of workman in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act was enacted in 1956 whereas the Apprentices Act was enacted in 1961. Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is thus prior to the general law and Section 18 of the Apprentices Act is a subsequent particular law. The provisions of Section 18 of the Apprentices Act will, therefore, 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.

15. It is true that in the Employee State Insurance Corporation and Anr. v. The Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., and Anr. (supra) the Supreme Court has referred to the inclusive definition of workman contained in Section 2(s) of the industrial Disputes Act and has pointed out that apprentice has been expressly included in the said definition. But in the said case the Supreme Court has not considered the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act in conjunction with the provisions of Section 18 of the Apprentices Act. In that case the Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the question as to whether an apprentice could be regarded as an 'employee' under Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The aforesaid decision cannot be read as laying down that inspite of the provisions of Section 18 of the Apprentices Act, an apprentice governed by the Apprentices Act is to be treated as a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It must, therefore, be concluded that an apprentice governed by the Apprentice Act is not a workman for the purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be applicable to him.