Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. From the definition of workman it is apparent that it includes any person employed to do the work of nature mentioned in the said definition for hire or reward. It also contemplates the term of employment either express or implied. The word "person" appearing in the - is clarified as also including a apprentice, thus the apprentice in order to be a workman should also be employed in Industry to do trade job work for hire or reward and there must be terms of his employment either express or implied. The impugned order of Industrial Court does not reveal any of these aspects and it is apparent that the learned Member of the Industrial Court has not considered these ingredients at all. In this background when provisions of section 18 of the Apprentice Act, are considered the said section clearly states that Apprentice undergoing apprentice training is not a worker and sub-clause (h) of section 18 further puts its beyond doubt by providing that any law with respect to Labour shall not apply to or in relation to such apprentice. It is thus clear that if the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are undergoing training as apprentice under the provisions of the Apprentice Act, 1961 they cannot be treated as workers, in view of the provisions of section 18 of the Apprentice Act, 1961 or also in view of the provisions of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The provisions of section 18 of the Apprentice Act, read With section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, make it clear that the apprentice governed by the Apprentice Act is not and cannot be governed by the Industrial Disputes Act. It is well known that there is no contract of employment with such Apprentice and there is no remuneration paid to them and what is paid to such apprentice is stipend, as determined under the Apprentice Act. In this background when the judgment reported in 1986 L/C 1014 (supra), is looked into the learned Single Judge of Rajashtan High Court has in paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 found that the Apprentice Act, 1961 does not cover all types of apprentices and it is only applicable to persons who undergo the apprentice training in pursuance of a contract of Apprentice Act, executed under section 4 thereof. In this view of the matter, in para No. 13 it is clarified that, an apprentice who is governed by the provisions of Apprentices Act, would not be a workman under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and would not be governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus the apprentice who has contract of employment and is working for hire or reward and that training as apprentice is not governed by section 4 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 will also get the benefits of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. This aspect is also apparent from the discussions in this respect, as contained in 1994(2) L.L.J. 1186, M/s Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. v. Labour Court, Kanpur,