Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 1 of 1 (0.43 seconds)

The Assistant Regional Director vs Sri Ganapathy Mills Company Limited on 25 January, 2006

8. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant relying on the decision in Premier Polytronics Limited, Vs. Assistant Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation reported in 2001-I-LLJ (page 187) and contended that the apprentices, as defined under Section 2(a) of the Apprentices Act, 1961, are not employees, against whom the employer, the E.S.I.Act will not be applicable. In the said case, a notice under Section 45(A) of E.S.I.Act, 1948 dated 6th May 1986, was directed against the appellant in the said case and the Inspector of the E.S.I.Corporation visited the factory and found that employees who were designated as apprentices were not trainees or apprentices. Hence, the order under Section 45(A) of the Act, was issued. In the reply to the notice, the employer had contended that there was a full-fledged scheme of apprenticeship in their factory with duly certified standing orders and regular classes were also conducted for one day in a week to the apprentices and for the rest of the week, they were being given job training. After ascertaining the actual state of affairs and based on the facts, it was concluded that the employees were actually given production work and they were not merely trainees. The E.S.I. Court had also taken into account other facts as well as the fact that as against the strength of the permanent employees of 25, the employer had represented that there were 87 apprentices and in that case, there was no reasonable materials placed to show that the employees were not apprentices. So, on that ground the findings of the learned E.S.I.Court was set aside.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A C Adityan - Full Document
1