IMPORTANT POINT
An Apprentice Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 2(s) and 25F-Life Insurance Corporation of India (Apprentice Development Officers) Recruitment Scheme, 1980-Termination of Service-Apprentice Development Officer with Life Insurance Corporation-Appellant was appointed as Apprentice Development Officer-His services were terminated-Appellant raised an industrial dispute alleging that he has been retrenched-Respondent s case that appellant is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act-Tribunal held that in view of the fact that appellant was discharged after the completion of apprenticeship period, he must be held to be a workman-Writ petition-Whether Development Officer of the Corporation is a workman-(No)-High Court was justified in setting aside the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Apprentices Act, 1961.
       Held : From a perusal of the award dated 28.5.1996 of the Tribunal, it does not appear that the Appellant herein had adduced any evidence whatsoever as regard the nature of his duties so as to establish that he had performed any skilled, unskilled, manual, technical or operational duties. The offer of appointment dated 16.7.1987 read with the Scheme clearly proved that he was appointed as an apprentice and not to do any skilled, unskilled, manual, technical or operational job. The onus was on the Appellant to prove that he is a workman. He failed to prove the same. Furthermore, the duties and obligations of a Development Officer of the Corporation by no stretch of imagination can be held to be performed by an apprentice. (Para 23)
       The expression Apprentice has been included in the definition of workman contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but by reason of a subsequent Parliamentary legislation, namely, Apprentices Act, 1961 (the 1961 Act), the term apprentice has been defined 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 1961 Act provides that apprentices are trainees and not workers save as otherwise provided in the Act. Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 18 of the 1961 Act. (Para 26)
        Apprentice under the general law means a person who is bound by a legal agreement to serve an employer for an agreed period and the employer is bound to instruct him. (Para 28)
       A workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 must not only establish that he is not covered by the provisions of the Apprenticeship Act but must further establish that he is employed in the establishment for the purpose of doing any work contemplated in the definition. Even in a case where a period of apprenticeship is extended, a further written contract carrying out such intention need not be executed. But in a case where a person is allowed to continue without extending the period of apprenticeship either expressly or by necessary implication and regular work is taken from him, he may become a workman. A person who claims himself to be an apprentice has certain rights and obligations under the statute. In case any person raises a contention that his status has been changed from apprentice to a workman, he must plead and prove the requisite facts. In absence of any pleading or proof that either by novation of the contract or by reason of the conduct of the parties, such a change has been brought about, an apprentice cannot be held to be workman. (Paras 35 and 36)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.-These appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 8.1.1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petitions No. 30393 of 1996 and 28474 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the writ petitions filed by the Respondent herein were allowed setting aside an award dated 28.5.1996 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur.

2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

The Appellant was appointed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as "the Corporation") on or about 16.7.1987 as Apprentice Development Officer. The relevant terms and conditions contained in the offer of appointment are as under :

"2. You will be taken, at the outset, as an Apprentice for a period of one year commencing from 16.7.1987 on a stipend of Rs. 1250/- per month, and will be given two months theoretical training at Divisional Office, Kanpur and thereafter the (sic) months Branch training followed by Field Training in a Branch as may be decided to us. You will faithfully and diligently apply yourself to the course of training fixed for you and carry out all orders and directions given to you.

3. On completion of the apprenticeship period, if your work and conduct are found satisfactory, you will be appointed as a Development Officer on probation on a monthly basic pay of Rs. 700/- and such other allowances as are admissible in accordance with staff Regulations.

4. During the period of apprenticeship, you shall be liable to be discharged from service without any notice.

7. You are not entitled to any travelling allowance for joining the Training Centre at Division Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kanpur."

3. The services of the Respondent were terminated purported to be in terms of para 4 of the said offer of appointment by a letter dated 14.7.1988. Contending that he has been retrenched in contravention of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Appellant herein raised an industrial dispute whereupon the Central Government by a notification dated 23rd August, 1991 referred the following dispute for adjudication of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur (for short "the Tribunal"):

"Whether the action of the Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Kanpur, in discharging Sri Mukesh Kumar Tripathi from service w.e.f. 14.7.88 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

4. Before the Tribunal a contention was raised by the Respondent No. 1 herein that the Appellant is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

5. By reason of its award dated 28.5.1996, the Tribunal held that in view of the fact that the Appellant was discharged after the completion of the apprenticeship period, he must be held to be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

6. The Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court questioning the said award. Before the High Court, the Appellant herein relied upon a decision of this Court in S.K. Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandra and Another [(1983) 3 SCR 799 : (1983) 4 SCC 214] in support of its contention that a Development Officer of the Corporation is a workman.

7. The High Court, however, relying on or on the basis of a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in H.R. Adyanthaya and Others Vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. and Others [(1994) 5 SCC 737] held that as therein S.K. Verma (supra) was held to have been rendered per incuriam, it was no longer a good law. The writ petition was allowed on that premise.

8. Ms. Indira Jaisingh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant would contend that in S.K. Verma (supra) this Court upon taking into consideration the works performed by a Development Officer came to the conclusion that as neither the same are managerial or supervisory in nature, he would be deemed to b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 672

IMPORTANT POINTAn Apprentice Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Cases Referred (7)

IMPORTANT POINT
An Apprentice Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.