Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. It would be advantageous to notice the backdrop against which the learned single Judge made reference to Full Bench. The learned Judge, after noticing the provisions of Section 2(9) and Section 2(22) of the ESI Act, observed that As can be seen from the definition employee, any person who is employed for wages in connection with the work of the establishment except the person engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 is for all practical purposes is the employee. Admittedly, in this case, the Trade Trainees are not the apprentices engaged under the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961. Therefore, they cannot come within the exception specifically carved out from the operation of the provision.

(a) any contribution paid by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund, or under this Act;

(b) any traveling allowance or the value of any traveling concession;

(c) any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment; or

(d) any gratuity payable on the discharge;

10. From a plain reading of sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the ESI Act, which defines employee, for our purpose, would also mean any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment to which ESI Act applies and whose services are temporarily let or let on hire to the principal employer by the person with whom the person whose services are so lent or let on hire has entered into contract of service. This provision [Section 2(9)(iii)] was amended in 1968 and was made more exhaustive whereby any person employed for wages on any work connected with the administration of the factory or establishment or any part, department or branch thereof or with the purchase of raw- materials for, or the distribution or sale of the products of the factory or establishments, was included in the definition of employee. Again in 1989 this provision was amended and it was further expanded and any person engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (Act No.52 of 1961) or under the Standing Orders of the Establishment was also included in the definition of employee by Act No.18/2010 w.e.f 01-06-2010. The expression or under the Standing Orders of the Establishment were substituted by and includes such person engaged as apprentice whose training period is extended to any length of time. For our purpose, the subsequent amendment by Act No.18/2010 w.e.f.01.06.2010 is not material and need not be taken into consideration. In other words, for our purpose, person engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (Act No.52 of 1961) or under the Standing Orders of the Establishment, is relevant.

(e) TRAINEE:-

A trainee means a workman to whom facilities for training with or without allowances are given without any obligation of employment on either side and shall not include apprentices covered by the APPRENTICES ACT 1961 as modified from time to time.

(f) APPRENTICE:-

An apprentice shall mean a person under training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship with or without an allowance and includes apprentices covered by the Apprentices Act 1961 as modified from time to time and whom the company is not obliged to employ after the conclusion of his apprenticeship.

25. In this backdrop, if we look at the definition of the word employee, we find that it is exhaustive and it was amended from time to time by Act No.44 of 1966, w.e.f.18-01-1968, then by Act No.29 of 1989 w.e.f 20-10-1989 and then by Act No.18 of 2010 w.e.f. 01-06-2010. We are concerned with only these three amendments in the present case. If we look at the amendments made in 1968, 1989 and 2010, we find that the Legislature made the original definition of employee more and more exhaustive so as to bring within its ambit the persons who were kept out earlier. The intention of the Legislature in view of the amendments is very clear whereby the benefits under the ESI Act are extended to more number of categories of persons. The amendment Act 44 of 1966 covers any person employed for wages of any work connected with the administration of the factory or establishment or any part, department or branch thereof or with the purchase of raw materials for, or the distribution or sale of the products of the factory or establishment. Then by Act No.29 of 1989 even a person engaged as an apprentice was also included excluding an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961. Before the amendment by Act 18 of 2010 any person engaged as an apprentice not being an apprentice under the Standing Orders of the Establishment was also included. That inclusion, however, was once again amended by Act No.18 of 2010 w.e.f. 01-06-2010 and the expression or under the standing orders of the establishment was substituted by and includes such person engaged as apprentice whose training period is extended to any length of time. Thus, the definition of employee is quite exhaustive, covering the trainees/apprentices within its ambit provided they are not engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961, or under the Standing Orders of the Establishment. In the present case, the trainees/apprentices were not engaged under the Apprentices Act and in view of our finding recorded earlier, it cannot be stated that they were engaged under the Standing Order.