Whether apprentices are entitled to the same protection and benefits as regular workers under various labour laws?
It is customary practice in many industries to accept trainees in various trades and occupation as Apprentices. An Apprentice is considered as a person who is bound by legal agreement to serve an employer for an agreed period and in return for that an employer is bound to instruct him in the trade or occupation. Many a time, such apprentice are subsequently absorbed by industries as regular workers after successfully completion of their apprenticeship.
A question often arises whether such apprentices are entitled to the same protection and benefits as regular workers under various labour laws. If apprenticeship contract is not explicitly extended or terminated and they continue to work with the employer after stipulated period of apprenticeship, are they by implication is entitled to claim employment benefits as regular workers?
The definition of workman under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 expressly includes apprentices. However, this definition has been held by various judicial pronouncements to include only those who works in the capacities of skilled or unskilled, manual, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory capacities. In case of supervisory staff, a monthly wage limit of Rs. 10,000 is also prescribed under the definition (As per Amendment in Industrial Dispute Act 2010) (Previously monthly wage limit of Rs. 1,600). Those who work in supervisory capacity at more than the prescribed wage limit, as well as those who work in managerial or administrative capacity are excluded from the definition of workman under the Act.
A subsequent Parliamentary legislation, the Apprentices Act of 1961 defines an apprentice in Section 2 (aa) to mean “a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated trade in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship. Section 18 of the Act provides that apprentices are trainees and not workers and provisions of any law with respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to such apprentices.
In view of legal provision under the Apprenticeship Act and definition of worker under the Industrial Disputes Act, this question answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Various High Courts which are as follows: –
Mukesh Tripathi v/s Senior Divisional Manager, LIC (2004-8-SCC-387)
The appellant was appointed by LIC on 16 July 1987 as Apprentice Development Officer on a monthly fixed stipend. The terms of contract of apprenticeship provided he was likely to be appointed as Probationary Development Officer upon successful completion of apprenticeship period. However, the other conditions of the same contract included that such apprentices were liable to be discharged from service without notice during the apprenticeship period. The services of such Apprentice Development Officers were terminated in terms of this stipulation of the apprenticeship contract upon which the employees raised an industrial dispute regarding their purported retrenchment in contravention of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The LIC raised a contention that the appellants are not workers under the Industrial Disputes Act and hence Section 25-F is not applicable. The employees contended that the work performed by the Development Officers was neither managerial nor supervisory in nature. Hence, they remained workers under the Industrial Disputes Act. The corporation contended that even if a person does not perform either managerial or supervisory duties in order to hold him a workman it must be established that he performs skilled, unskilled, manual, technical, supervisory or clerical work for hire or reward. Since it is not established in this case that the employees are performing any of these jobs, they cannot be accepted as falling under the definition of workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, the contract of apprenticeship under which these employees were recruited explicitly mentions that it was only on completion of the apprenticeship period and their work and conduct being found satisfactory, they can be appointed as Probationary Development Officers. Thus, without such appointment order, they cannot be presumed to be workers even if the corporation has continued them after completion of their apprenticeship contract. The LIC said in the absence of any proof provided by the employees that their status has conclusively changed from apprenticeship to regular workers, their argument cannot be accepted.
Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board vs Shiv Mohansingh and Another (2004-8-SCC-402)
The Supreme Court held that an apprentice is not a worker under the employer where he is undergoing the apprenticeship training and Section 7 of the Apprenticeship Act clearly shows that the contract of apprenticeship shall terminate on expiry of the period of apprenticeship training. There is no obligation on the part of the employer to give them any employment whatsoever and similarly, apprentices are not bound to continue to work for him. There is no relation of master and servant or employer and employee between the employer and his apprentice trainee. Even if the contract of apprenticeship is not registered by an employer as is required under the Act, the same does not become a nullity. The status of an apprentice does not change to that of a worker only because the contract of apprenticeship has not been registered by the employer. Even when such contract is not registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser, the apprentices continue to enjoy the rights of apprenticeship under the Act and an employer is bound to fulfil his obligations towards them.
Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hanuman Prasad Chaudhary vs Rajasthan State Electricity Board (1986-LabIC-1014-Raj),
The Supreme Court decided in this that when there is an apparent conflict between the provisions of two legislations, as is evident from the definition of workers in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which includes apprentice in the definition of workers and Section 18 of the Apprentices Act, which categorically declares that an apprentice governed by the Apprentices Act is not to be treated as a worker and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act would not be applicable to an apprentice. The court said such conflicts should be resolved by applying the principle of harmonious construction. The Apprentices Act is not an exhaustive Act to cover all types of apprentices but is applicable only to persons who are undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of the contract of apprentices executed under Section 4 of the Act. It is possible to visualize persons who may be engaged as apprentices but not covered under the Apprentices Act. Therefore, a person who is appointed as an apprentice but not governed by an Apprentices Act would be a worker only if he fulfils the required conditions under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. But an apprentice who is governed by the Apprentices Act would not be a worker under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Apart from the principle of harmonious construction, the Apprentices Act 1961 being a subsequent particular law as compared to the Industrial Disputes Act, the provisions of the Apprentices Act would prevail over those of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, when the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable, the apprentice whose contract is terminated upon completion of training, cannot claim the benefits of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act for either notice or compensation.
Shankarbhai Lebabhai Vankar vs. Executive Engineer and Ors. 2017 (Guj. H. C.)
The Gujrat High Court held that an apprentice appointed under the Apprentices Act, 1961 is not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. An apprentice after completion of his apprenticeship is not having any legal right to demand regularization from the employer. As per provision of the Apprentices Act, 1961, an apprentice is a trainee and not a worker/workman. The Provisions of labour laws shall not be applicable to an apprentice for seeking any relief from the management under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Appointment letter, indicating that petitioner was engaged as apprentice in trade of Lineman against stipend under the Act of 1961 by entering into required contract which was informed to Apprenticeship Adviser, is a sufficient proof to establishment that the petitioner was an apprentice and not a workman.
ESI Corporation vs Tata Engg. & Co (AIR 1976 SC 66)
The Supreme Court held that when under the terms and conditions of agreement under which apprentices are engaged by the Company there are mere trainees for a particular period for a distinct purpose and the company is not bound to employ them in their work after training period is over, such apprentices cannot be said to be employed in the work of the company or in connection with the work of the company more so when they are not given wages defined in Section 2 (22). Thus, an apprentice is not an employee within Section 2(9) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
From the above cited case law, it clarifies that the Apprenticeship Act was enacted for recruiting apprentices for developing a strong industrial base by providing trained manpower. It was not the intention of the legislature to provide automatic route to become regular worker.
DISCLAIMER
This article is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as soliciting, advertisement or legal advice. The information contained should not be acted upon without consulting with the appropriate experts for your specific circumstances. You can send your comments at info@avklaw.in or reach out to us on 7588802123
