Karnataka High Court
Judges : V.P.Mohan Kumar
SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD. - Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (KARNATAKA) - Respondent
WP 16331 Of 1986
Decided On : 09/28/1995
trainees - Employees' Provident Fund - EPF Act, 1952, Scheme - Section 2(f), Section 2(f)(ii), Para 2(f)(iv) - The court discussed the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(f) of the EPF Act and the exclusion of apprentices from the purview of the Act under Para 2(f)(iv) of the Scheme. The court emphasized the dominant intent of imparting and accepting learning under agreed terms in the context of apprenticeship and traineeship, and highlighted that trainees engaged for learning purposes are not considered employees under the EPF Act and the Scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought clarification on whether trainees are covered under the EPF Act. The court analyzed the definition of 'employee' and the nature of the trainees' engagement, finding that trainees engaged for learning purposes are not considered employees under the EPF Act and the Scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that trainees engaged for learning purposes are not considered employees under the EPF Act and the Scheme, based on the dominant intent of imparting and accepting learning under agreed terms in the context of apprenticeship and traineeship.
Issues: The issue revolved around whether trainees engaged by the petitioner-Company are covered under the EPF Act and the Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the dominant intent of imparting and accepting learning under agreed terms in the context of apprenticeship and traineeship, leading to the finding that trainees engaged for learning purposes are not considered employees under the EPF Act and the Scheme.
Final Decision: The court held that the trainees engaged by the petitioner company are not 'employees' within the meaning of the EPF Act and the Scheme, and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to make any contribution on their behalf.
( 2 ) ANNEXURE-B is the Standing Order of the petitioner Company which defines 'trainee' as follows : "2 (1)- 'trainee' is a person taken on the rolls of the company for purpose of learning a trade upon terms as may be fixed by the company and with a nominal allowance till otherwise and shall include (i) A trainee in respect of whom the Company undertakes to give implant training, whether stipendiary or otherwise, with an option to employing him, (ii) A trainee who is taken on the rolls to learn work with a view of possible employment by, the company (iii) A trainee who is taken for training under contract which contract shall provide for intensive training in theory and in practice and upon payment of such allowance and for such period as the Company may decide and the training upon the completion of such training be bound on a bond of indemnity as may be provided to serve the Company for such period as may be fixed in the contract. 'trainee' will include the 'apprentice' defined under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 for the purpose of Section 18 and 19 of the Standing orders. " the definition states that for the purpose of Sections 18 and 19 of the Standing Order, a 'trainee' will include an 'apprentice' appointed under Apprenticeship Act, 1961.
( 3 ) THE EPF Act his been enacted to provide for institution of provident fund etc. , for 'employees' in factories and other establishments. The said Act defines "employee" at Section 2 (f) as follows :
" (f) "employee" means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment, and who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer, and includes any person - (i) employed by or through a contractor in or on connection with the work of the establishment; (ii) engaged as an apprentice, not being engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961) or under the Standing Orders of the establishment. "
By virtue of Section 2 (f) (ii) of the Act, an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act or under the Standing Orders of the establishment is not an employee within the meaning of the act. In other words, the apprentice standing outside the definition alone is an employee for the purpose of the Act. We may now turn to Para 2 (f) of the Scheme framed under the Act. The said paragraph excludes certain classes of the employees as defined under the Act from the purview of the Scheme. Sub-clause (iv) thereof excludes an apprentice. Therefore, an apprentice who is an employee and who is not appointed under the Apprentices Act or under the provisions of the standing Order is also excluded from the purview of the Act. In other words, all apprentices other than the category mentioned in Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act are employees : but these employees are outside the purview of the scheme by virtue of paragraph 2 (f) (iv) of the scheme. Therefore, "apprentice" referred to in para 2 (f) (iv) of the scheme is neither an employee appointed under the Apprentices Act nor under the Standing Order but a third category of employee. In other words, the conjoint effect of these provisions would be that an apprentice of all types is excluded from the purview of the EPF Act and the Scheme framed thereunder. The epf Act filters a category of apprentice by the definition clause. The remaining category of apprentice is totally taken outside the purview of the Scheme by means of Section 2 (f) (iv ).
( 4 ) WE have to examine the question raised in the with the above statutory provisions in mind. Annexure-A is the letter of appointment issued to a trainee in the petitioner Company. The relevant portion reads as follows :
Ref : Your application dated Ap
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.