Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

58. In the background of the above analysis of the Regulations framed under the RTC Act, which clearly enumerates the conditions of a person selected to be

- 36 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7636 and Connected matters appointed, the status of a trainee would now have to be examined with reference to the definition of a "workman" as defined under the ID act.

59. As could be seen from the definition of a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, the definition brings within its purview any person who is employed in an industry, including an apprentice, to be a workman.

- 44 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7636 and Connected matters

71. As could be seen from the above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically stated that the use of the word "apprentice" in Section 2(s) made the intent of the Legislature clear that, for the purposes of the ID Act, even an apprentice was a workman, but since the word "apprentice" was not used in the Employees' State Insurance Act (for short, "the ESI Act") enacted in the year 1948, it was clear that for the purpose of the ESI Act, an apprentice would not be a workman. This passage, by itself, emphasizes the fact that even a learner who is not a regular employee would have to be considered as a workman for purpose of the ID Act.

72. In light of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of Devinder Singh and the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (both cited supra), it is obvious that a person who is undergoing training would also be a 'workman', as contemplated under Section 2(s) of the ID Act.

- 45 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7636 and Connected matters

73. Further, in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board (supra), the Apex Court considered the Apprentices Act and equated the position of an 'apprentice' to that of a 'trainee' which would be governed by the conditions stipulated the training contract entered into with the employees. It was also observed that an apprentice could not be considered as a workman and that as per Section 7 of the Apprentices Act, the training would terminate on the expiry of the training period and that the employer was given the discretion to not extend an offer of employment to the trainee unless the terms of his contract indicated that the employer would offer him a job upon successful completion of his apprenticeship training. This case, however, did not consider the application of the ID Act as done in the present case.

76. The first of the division bench judgments was rendered on 18.08.2014 and in this judgment, the division bench did not consider the definition of "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. This Court was considering the definition of a "corporation servant" under the provisions of the KSRTC Servants (Conduct &

- 47 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7636 and Connected matters Discipline) Regulations, 1971 ("the C&D Regulations") and this Court was not considering the definition of a "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act or the definition of an "employee" under the C&R Regulations. Since the division bench was not considering the definition of "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, and in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above wherein even an apprentice is considered as a workman for the purposes of Section 2(s) of the ID Act, reliance placed on said judgment would be of no avail.