Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the agreement under the Apprentice Act, which is at Exh.42, 43 and 44 is wrongly relied by the ESI Court and the agreement is entered under Standing Order and the same is not under the Apprentice Act. Counsel for the appellant has stated that the respondent company is not paying contribution even for its regular employees. However, this statement runs contrary to the notice dated 25th August 1995 inasmuch as the Deputy Regional Director himself has observed that the contribution paid for employees do not include vehicle and leave travel allowance. In that view of the matter, submission of the learned advocate is devoid of any merits.

5. Production of records for inspection as required under section 45 of the Act under S for the wage period from _____ to _______ inspite of Insurance Inspector's request on ____________ this office request in registered letter dated _____ for inspection.??

9.1 He submitted that it is clear from said notice that it was only for the apprentice under Standing Orders and there was no notice under the Apprentice Act or for non-payment of contribution of regular employee.

10. Mr.Patel also submitted that Jaymalbhai, who is representative of management of the respondent mill, in paragraph 7 of his cross-examination has clearly stated that if the persons appointed under the Apprentice Act meet with an accident then they are paying them compensation, for which a separate insurance is taken with New India Insurance Company. It is also stated by him that for the apprentices also, who are appointed under the Standing Orders, they have taken insurance. Thus no claim is made for apprentices from appellant.

12.

Incidentally we may note that Section 18 of the Apprentices Act, 1961, provides that-

"Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every apprentice undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated trade in an establishment shall be a trainee and not a worker......"

13. The concept of apprenticeship is, therefore, fairly known and has now been clearly recognised in the Apprentices Act. Apart from that, as we have noticed earlier, the terms and conditions under which those apprentices are engaged do not give any scope for holding that they are employed in the work of the company or in connection with its work for wages within the meaning of Section 2 (9) of the Act. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.??

17. Mr.Patel has further relied on the decision of Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Ors.

reported in 2006 I CLR 359 wherein also it is held that the appellant is not liable to pay ESI contribution on the stipend paid to the apprentices.

18. It is also required to be noted that on facts it is established that by agreement under Standing Orders employees are protected by insurance company.

19. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and also gone through the judgment of the trial Court and other relevant documents. As held in the case of Mukesh K. Tripathi (Supra) the interpretation clause contained in a statute although may deserve a broader meaning having employed the word 'includes' but it is necessary to keep in view the scheme of the object and purport of the statute which takes him out of the said definition. The interpretation of the section in question begins with the words ?Sunless the context otherwise requires??. After considering the evidence on record and after considering the judgments of different High Court and Supreme Court, the Court below came to the conclusion that apprentice under the Apprentice Act or under the Standing Orders are not included within the definition of 'workmen' and their stipend or training expenses are not included within the meaning of 'wages', more particularly when they have taken insurance for the employee who are covered under the Apprentice Act under the agreement. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and finding arrived at the trial Court and no evidence is shown to me to take a contrary view of the matter. Apart from that learned Advocate for the appellant is not able to point out any question of law much less substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.