Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The evidence of PW1 Sri Muthusamy Spinning Master and PW2 Sri Sundaresan Labour Welfare Officer would disclose that the petitioner mills is having class room for taking classes to the apprentices and PW1 is taking classes for the abovesaid apprentices. It is also evident from the evidence of PW2 that the apprentices were given training for six months, in each department by taking classes as mentioned above and RW1 Sri Krishnamoorthy, on behalf of the respondent had also inspected such classes being taken by the petitioner's-mill. Sri Krishnamoorthy, who was examined as RW1 would also admit that he had gone through the agreement between the apprentice and the petitioner-mill, inspected the class rooms and had also seen the classes being taken by the petitioner's- mill to the above said apprentices. The abovesaid evidence would disclose that the petitioner's-mill should have given intensive training in all fields to the apprentices engaged in the said mill and for that they should have paid stipend during the course of training. If the abovesaid evidence on record is taken into consideration, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court cited above, the apprentice, who have undergone training in the petitioner-mill cannot be treated as employee within the meaning Section 2(9) of the Act. If the apprentices cannot be treated as employees under the Act referred to above the respondents'-Corporation is not justified in asking for payment of contribution towards the amount spent as stipend for the apprentices. In view of the said position, the impugned order passed by the Court, below cannot be sustained.

12. In fine, appeals are allowed in part and the impugned order of the lower Court is set aside so far as it relates to payment of contributions to stipend paid to the apprentices and lump sum payment and interim payments paid and treated as ex gratia payment. The petitioner is hereby directed to pay contribution on 20 per cent of the repair charges instead of 25 per cent fixed by the lower Court. The petitioner is entitled to refund of the excess amount deposited as per the order of this Court, in view of this final order. Both the parties arc directed to bear their own costs.