( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under S. 82 (2) of the Employees State Insurance Act (referred to as 'aet'), against an order made by the Employees Insurance court (referred to as 'insurance Court'), Bangalore, in ESI Application no. 24/1972. The application has been preferred by the respondent-mill (referred to as 'mills'), under S. 77 of the Act. The appellant is the Regional director of Employees State Insurance Corporation (referred to as 'corporation' ).

( 2 ) THE material circumstances leading to the appeal, briefly, are: the Mills, being a company registered under the Companies Act, is engaged in the manufacture of textile yarn and fabrics, and has been carrying on its business in two factories situated at Davangere and Gadag in the state. The present dispute relates to the demand for payment of special contribution under the Act in respect of wages paid to apprentices and casual employees employed by it. The sum so demanded is Rs. 827 only.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the Mills, the reliefs sought were of a declaratory character and have been set out thus :" (i) casual workmen are not employees under S. 2 (9) of the Act; (ii) Apprentices are not employees under S. 2 (9) of the Act and allowance paid to them is not wages under S. 2 (22) of the Act; (iii) Arrears of wages paid to the employees under recommendation of the second Central Wage Board for Cotton Textile Industry is not liable to payment of employers special contribution. "

( 4 ) ON behalf of the Corporation, it was contended that the Mills was not entitled to the said reliefs principally on the grounds: (1) that the so called apprentices were not really apprentices coming within the purview of the Apprentices Act, and the remuneration paid to them constituted 'wages' within the meaning of S. 2 (22) of the Act; and (2) that casual workers employed in connection with the re-construction of the compound wall and the repairs to the buildings of the factory were employees within the meaning of the definition in S. 2 (9) of the Act.

( 5 ) AFTER trial of the issues and upon an examination of the evidence adduced for the parties, the Insurance Court found on all issues against the corporation and in favour of the Mills, and granted the reliefs sought. Hence the appeal by the Corporation.

( 6 ) ON behalf of the appellant, only contentions bearing on the issues relating to apprentices and casual employees were urged. Hence, we are not concerned herein with the relief relating to payment of arrears of wages.

( 7 ) ON the issues relating to apprentices, the Insurance Court held that the evidence of AW. 1 (the witness for the Mills) and the documentary evidence Ex. A-1 to A-6 produced, in regard to the procedure followed in the employment of apprentices and the terms of such employment, was preferable to that of the witnesses for the Corporation. It, therefore, came to the conclusion that such apprentices fell outside the purview of the definition of an employee under the Act. Presumably because that such a finding was essentially one of fact and, therefore, not ordinarily amenable to review in an appeal of the present nature, it was simply contended that the remuneration paid to such apprentices was 'wages' within the meaning of S. 2 (22) of the Act, and, therefore, the Mills would still be liable to the contribution demanded.

( 8 ) WE consider it unnecessary to examine this contention in detail, in view of the enunciation of the Supreme Court in the decision in the case of Employees State Insurance Corp v. Tata Engineering Co. Ltd. , AIR 1976 SC 66. In that case, in the context of a question whether apprentices employed by the company fell within the scope and ambit of sub-sees (9) and (22) of S. 2 of the Act, it has been observed by the Court thus :"from the terms of the agreement it is clear that apprentices are mere trainees for a particular period for a distinct purpose and the employer is not bound to employ them in their works after the period of training is over. During the appren

Click Here to Read the rest of this document