C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.

1. Legal issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether a person undergoing training after appointment under an employer will fall within the excluded category under Section 2 (e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner company is challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter for short 'the Act'). It is held in Ext.P4 that the 1st respondent is entitled for payment of gratuity during the period when he had undergone training. In an appeal filed by the petitioner company the said order was confirmed through Ext.P6. It is challenging Exts.P4 and P6 this writ petition is filed.

2. The 1st respondent is a person having 22 years service in CRPF. He applied for the post of Guard (Trainee) set apart for Scheduled Tribe candidates, based on notification published inviting applications. He was selected and appointed as Guard (Trainee) with effect from 01-07-1997. On completion of 2 years training period he was appointed as Guard (Watch & Ward), with effect from 01-07-1999. He continued in the service without any break and retired on 03-03-2010, after rendering 12 years and 9 months service. The petitioner company paid gratuity counting his service only from 01-07-1999. Against denial of gratuity for the period from 01-07-1997 to 30-06-1999, the 1st respondent filed claim under Section 7 (4) (b) of the Act, before the Controlling Authority. On the issue as to whether the period of training from 01-07-1997 to 30-06-1999 is to be counted for payment of gratuity, the Controlling Authority held that, only apprentice has been kept out of the purview of the Act and 'trainee' being different from 'apprentice' will be included in the definition of employee contemplated under Section 2 (e). The controlling authority had relied on the decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Regional Labour Commissioner (central Hydrabad) and Others (2000 (87) FLR 522)(A.P).It is held therein that temporary/trainee period will also be eligible for payment of gratuity, provided it is continuous in nature and not covered under the Apprentices Act, 1961. On facts the controlling authority found that the 1st respondent was working during the disputed period without any interruption. It was also noticed that the 1st respondent is an Ex-CRPF personnel with rich experience of 22 years well acquainted with the job of Watch & Ward.

3. The Appellate Authority also found that, a trainee employee under a contract of employment is not an 'apprentice' under the Apprentice Act. Since Section 2 (e) of the Act excludes only apprentice and not trainee, there is no exclusion of trainee from the purview of Payment of Gratuity Act. The Appellate Authority had placed heavy reliance on the decision in Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd.(AIR 1976 SC 66).

4. For a better appreciation of the issue involved, a perusal of the definition of 'employee' contained in Section 2 (e) of the Act will be beneficial, which is extracted below.

2 (e) "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity.

As per the definition, for the purpose of payment of gratuity, an employee include any person employed for wages, other than an 'apprentice'. The term wages is also defined under Section 2 (s), which is extracted below.

2. (s) "wages" means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment