Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. From a reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that in order that an apprentice, if he is to be treated as a workman, has to establish that he has been employed in the concerned industry for the purpose of training in accordance with a scheme prepared in that behalf and approved by the State Government.

19. This Court in the case of Karuna Shankar Tripathi (supra) has held as follows :

"Thus, the main question which crops up for decision in this writ petition is that if an apprentice has been appointed under the provisions of Apprentices Act, 1961, then he cannot be treated as workman and after the completion of the training period he is not entitled to be retained in service and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act would not be attracted to him. But if an apprentice is not appointed in accordance with the provisions of Apprentices Act then he would be an apprentice in accordance with the general terms and would come within the ambit and scope of the definition of 'workman' contained in Section 2 (z) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act."

20. In the case of Ram Dular Paswan (supra), the Patna High Court has held as follows :

"The apprentices are mere trainees who are given training in specified trade. They are not employees of the person, who has engaged them. So long as they act as trainees they will be governed by the Apprentices Act and the I.D. Act cannot be applied to them. But if an apprentice does "any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward", he will be a workman to whom I.D. Act will apply and, therefore, will not be governed by the Apprentices Act, even if he was enrolled as an apprentice trainee. It is not the label a person has, but the type of work which he does, which is relevant criteria for determining as to whether he is or is not a workman."

21. In the case of M/s. U. P. State Spinning Mills Co. (supra) this Court has held as follows :

"8. Since apprentice has been defined in Section 2 (a), reference of apprentice in Section 2 (z) cannot have any other meaning than that has been ascribed in Section 2 (a). In view of the definition of apprentice given in the Act the apprentice included in the definition of workman cannot be interpreted to mean an apprentice other than apprentice defined in Section 2 (a). If any such interpretation is made in that event, it would be contrary to the scheme of the U. P Act itself. Now that the definition of workman in the Central Act includes apprentice but the word 'apprentice' has not been defined in the said Act, therefore, though an apprentice who may not be an apprentice as defined in Section 2 (a) may be included in the definition of workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Central Act. But in cases where U. P. Act applies, such an interpretation cannot be given because of the maxim "Generalia Specialibus non-derogant". Inasmuch as a general statute must yield to a special statue. The U. P. Act is a special statute applicable only to U. P. and has been enacted under the concurrent legislative power provided under the Constitution would prevail upon the general definition. Therefore, the apprentice included in the definition of 'workman' in Section 2 (z) of the U. P. Act includes apprentice defined in Section 2 (a) of the said Act and not otherwise."

26. Applying the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the present case, I find that the petitioner has not been appointed as an apprentice/trainee under any scheme approved by the State Government. Thus, he cannot be treated as an apprentice falling under the definition of the word 'workman' as given in the Act and, therefore, the provisions of Section 6N of the Act would not be applicable.

27. The petitioner cannot derive any advantage from the fact that his share of contribution of provident fund and Employees State Insurance was deducted from his emoluments inasmuch as under Section 2(8) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and under Section 2(f) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the word "employee" includes any person engaged as an apprentice not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961. The petitioner who was engaged as an apprentice/trainee not under the Apprentices Act, 1961 was, thus, rightly covered under the aforementioned two Acts.