Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

33. Apprenticeship Act, 1961, was enacted to provide for regulation and control of training.

Apprentice has been defined to be a person who is undertaking apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship.

34. Section 18 reads as follows:

" Apprentices are trainees and not workers.

- Save as otherwise provided in this Act -

(a) every apprentice undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated trade in an establishment shall be a trainee and not a worker:

36. The said definition is in pari materia with the definition of workman as contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The question as to whether an apprentice is a workman within the meaning of the provision of the said Act or not would be considered a little later, At this juncture let us consider the provision of the Apprenticeship Act and the rules which have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 37(1) of the 1961 Act. Establishment has been defined in Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act which includes any place where an industry is carried on. Section 2(i) enumerates the establishments in public sector. Respondent 1 comes within the purview of the said definition. Rule 10 of the Rules provide for records and returns to be maintained and submitted to the authorities prescribed therein. The prescribed form stipulating filing of returns of personal details of the apprentice, inter alia, provides for the date of his birth.

41. In this case this Court is concerned with the definition of "workman" under the provision of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, and the Certified Standing Order of the respondent-

company.

42. In terms of the aforementioned provision as well as in terms of the 1946 Act, an apprentice may also be a workman provided he fulfills the conditions therefor. He would not, however, be a workman in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Apprenticeship Act.

43. It is true that whenever the Legislature uses the word "includes," a broader meaning is to be given thereto, but the said definition has to be considered keeping in view the scheme, object and purport of the Apprentice Act and in particular Section 18 thereof.

49. In Satvinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in 1986 (2) SLR 437, M. Punchhi, J. (as his Lordship then was) upon considering the provision of Apprenticeship Act observed:

"Rather Section 18 of the Act specially says that every apprentice undergoing apprenticeship training in the designated trade in the establishment shall be a trainee and not a worker. The note is specific in that regard that one must have rendered one year's service as an employee of the Punjab State Electricity Board and not having received one year's training in the Board. Both status cannot be equated in any event. Thus, I am of the considered view that the petitioner did not hold the qualifications to claim the posts and were rightly declined interview by the Board despite being called."