http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 30  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2429 of 2003

PETITIONER: U.P. State Electricity Board

RESPONDENT: Shri Shiv Mohan Singh and Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/10/2004

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & A.K.Mathur

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

With   (C.A. No.  8386/2003. 7005/03, 7006/03, 8383/03, 8385/03, 8384/03,  9231/03, 9234/03, 9232/03, 9233/03, 9679/03, 9680/03, 9681/03,   9683/03, 122/04, 14/04, 1965/04 & 2193/04)

A.K. MATHUR, J.

       In all these appeals common question of law is involved,  therefore, they are disposed of  by common order.  The main question involved in these appeals is what is the  scope of Apprentices Act, 1961 vis a vis the U.P. Industrial  Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial  Disputes  Act, 1947 and the  Indian Boilers Act, 1923.

       The Apprentices Act, 1961 was  promulgated  primarily for  the purpose  of recruiting the apprentices.   The idea behind was  strong industrial base across the country.  For the industrial  growth it was necessary to have trained man power and for that  purpose the apprentices were recruited.         The Introduction, Objects and Reasons for enacting this  Act reads as under :-            

INTRODUCTION " After  India gained independence, a wave to  have its own strong industrial base swept the  country.  Backed by Government policies,  industrial growth had a quantum leap.  With the  industrial growth a need was felt to have trained  man-power and for that steps were taken to  arrange for  training  of apprentices in the  industry.  After some years it necessitated that  the training being imparted to the apprentices  should be regulated by legislation.  Accordingly  the Apprentices Bill, 1961 was introduced in a  Parliament to provide for the regulation and  control of training of apprentices.

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 30  

The question of undertaking legislation for  regulating the training of apprentices in  industry  has been under the consideration of the  Government for a long time.  Expert committees  which went into the question have recommended  such legislation.  Although certain establishment  in the public and private sectors have been  carrying out programmes of training of skilled  workers on a systematic basis, industry in general  has not as yet fully organized such programmes.   In the context of the Five Year Plan and the large  scale industrial development of the country,  there  is an increasing demand for  skilled craftsmen.   The Government considers that it is necessary   fully to utilize the facilities available for the  training of apprentices and to ensure their training  in accordance with the programmes, standards  and syllabi, drawn up by expert bodies.   

   The Bill is intended to give effect to these  objectives."

Now we shall examine the necessary provisions of the Act. Section 2 deals with the definition. Section 2 (aa)  defines  "apprentice" which means a person who is undergoing  apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of   apprenticeship.

 Section 2 (aaa)  deals with "apprenticeship training" which  means a course of  training in any industry or establishment  undergone in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship and  under prescribed terms and conditions which may be different for  different categories of apprentices.      

Section 2 (b) deals with "Apprenticeship Adviser"  which reads  as under:          " ’Apprenticeship Adviser’ means the Central  Apprenticeship Adviser appointed under sub- section (1) of Section 26 or the State  Apprenticeship Adviser appointed under sub- section (2) of that section."

Section 2 (d) defines "Appropriate Government". Section 2 (e) defines ’designated trade’ which means a  trade  of any  vocational  course which the Central Government,  after consultation with the Central Apprenticeship Council, may  by notification in the Official Gazette specify as a designated  trade for the purposes of this Act.

Section 2 (f) deals with "employer" which means  any person   who employs one or more other persons to do any work in an  establishment for  remuneration and includes any person  entrusted with the supervision and control of employees in such  establishment.

Section 2 (q) defines "trade  apprentice" which means an  apprentice who undergoes apprenticeship training in any such  trade or occupation as may be prescribed.

Section 2 (r) deals with "worker" which means any person

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 30  

who is employed for wages in any kind of work and who gets his  wages directly from the employer but shall not include an  apprentice referred to in clause (aa).  

Section 3 defines qualification for being engaged as an  apprentice.  Only two qualifications are required that he should  not be less than fourteen years of age and satisfies such  standards or education and physical fitness as may be  prescribed.             Section 4 which is relevant for our purpose reads as under:-

"Contract of apprenticeship \026 (1) No person  shall be engaged as an apprentice to undergo  apprenticeship training in a designated trade  unless such person or, if he is a minor, his  guardian has entered into a contract of  apprenticeship with the employer.

(2) The apprenticeship training shall be deemed  to have commenced on the date on which the  contract of apprenticeship has been entered into  under sub-section (1).

(3) Every contract of apprenticeship may  contain such terms and conditions as may be  agreed to by the parties to the contract:

       Provided that no such term or condition  shall be inconsistent with any provision of this Act  or any rule made thereunder.

(4) Every contract of apprenticeship entered  into under sub-section (1)  shall be sent by the  employer  within such period as may be prescribed  to the Apprenticeship Adviser for registration.

(5) The Apprenticeship Adviser shall not  register a contract of apprenticeship unless he is  satisfied that the person described as an  apprentice in the contract is qualified under this Act  for being engaged as an apprentice to  undergo  apprenticeship training in the designated trade  specified in the contract.

(6)  Where      the      Central         Government,   after   consulting  the      Central Apprenticeship  Counsel, makes any rule varying the terms and  conditions of apprenticeship training, of any  category of apprentices undergoing such training,  then, the terms and conditions of every contract of  apprenticeship relating to that category of  apprentices and subsisting immediately before the  making of such rule shall be deemed to have been  modified accordingly."

Section 5 deals  with the  Novation of contract of  apprenticeship which reads as under:      " Where an employer with whom a  contract of apprenticeship has been entered  into, is for any reason, unable to fulfil his  obligations under the contract and with the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 30  

approval of the Apprenticeship Adviser it is  agreed between the employer, the apprentice  or his guardian and any other employer that the  apprentice shall be engaged as an apprentice  under the other employer for the unexpired  portion of the period of apprenticeship training,  the agreement, on registration with the  Apprenticeship Adviser, shall be deemed to be  the contract of apprenticeship between the  apprentice or his guardian and the other  employer, and on and from the date of such  registration, the contract of apprenticeship  with  the first employer shall terminate and no  obligation under that contract shall be  enforceable at the instance of any party to the  contract against the other party thereto."

   Section 6  deals with  the period of apprenticeshIp  training which reads as under:-

"6. Period of apprenticeship training :-   

The period of apprenticeship training,  which shall be specified in the contract of  apprenticeship, shall be as follows -  

(a)       in the case apprentices who, having  undergone institutional training in a school  or other institution recognized by the  National Council, have passed the trade  tests or examinations conducted by that  Council or by an institution recognized by  that Council the period of apprenticeship  training shall be such as may be  determined by that Council;  

(aa) in the case of trade apprentices who,  having undergone institutional training in a  school or other institution affiliated to or  recognized by a Board or State Council of  Technical Education or any other authority  which the Central Government may, by  notification in the Official Gazette specify in  this behalf, have passed the trade tests or  examinations conducted by that Board or  State Council or authority, the period of  apprenticeship training shall be such as may  be prescribed;

(b)in the case of other apprentices the period  of apprenticeship training shall be such as  may be prescribed;

)   in the case of graduate or technician  apprentice technician (vocational)  apprentice, the period of apprenticeship  training shall be such as may be   prescribed."

Section 7 deals with  the termination of  apprenticeship  Contract which reads as under:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 30  

" 7. Termination of apprenticeship contract  -   

(1)     The contract of apprenticeship shall  terminate on the expiry of the period of  apprenticeship training.

(2)     Either party to a contract of apprenticeship  may make an application to the Apprenticeship  Adviser for the termination of the contract, and  when such application is made, shall send by  post a copy thereof to the other party to the  contract.

(3)     After considering the contents of the  application and the objections, if any, filed by the  other party, the Apprenticeship Adviser may, by  order  in writing, terminate the contract if he is  satisfied that the parties to the contract or any of  them have or has failed to carry out the terms and  conditions of the contract and that it is desirable  in the interests of the parties or any of them to  terminate the same:

 Provided that where a contract is terminated-

(a) for failure on the part of the employer to  carry out the terms and conditions of the contract,   the employer shall pay to the apprentice such  compensation as may be  prescribed;

(b) for such failure on the part of the  apprentice the apprentice or his guardian shall  refund to the employer as cost of training such  amount as may be determined by the  Apprenticeship Adviser.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any  other provision of this act, where a contract of  apprenticeship has been terminated by the  Apprenticeship Adviser before the expiry of the  period of apprenticeship training and a new  contract of apprenticeship is being entered into  with a new employer, the Apprenticeship Adviser  may, if he is satisfied that the contract of  apprenticeship with the previous employer could  not be completed because of any lapse on the  part of the previous employer, permit the period  of apprenticeship training already undergone by  the apprentice with his previous employer to be  included in the period of apprenticeship training to  be undertaken with the new employer."

Section 8 deals with the number of apprentices for  a  designated trade. Section 9 deals with  practical and basic training of  apprentices. Section 10 deals with the  related instruction of  apprentices.

Section 11 deals with the obligations of employers which is  relevant for our purpose which reads as under:-

    "11. Obligations of employers \026 Without

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 30  

prejudice to the other provisions of this Act every  employer shall have the following obligations in  relation to an apprentice, namely -          (a) to provide the apprentice with the training  in his trade in accordance with the provisions of  this Act, and the rules made thereunder;

(b)  if the employer is not himself qualified in  the   trade, to ensure that a person  who  possesses the prescribed qualifications is placed  in charge of the training of the apprentice;

   (bb) to provide adequate instructional staff,      possessing such qualifications as may be  prescribed for imparting practical and theoretical  training and facilities for trade  test of apprentices;  and

) to carry out his obligations under  the  contract of apprenticeship."

Section 12 deals with  the  Obligations of apprentices  which reads as under:

"12. Obligations of apprentices \026 (1)  Every  apprentice undergoing apprenticeship training  shall have the following obligations, namely :-

(a)      to learn his trade conscientiously and  diligently and endeavour to qualify himself as  a skilled craftsman before the expiry of the  period of training;

(b)      to attend practical and instructional classes  regularly;

)  to carry out all lawful orders of his employer  and superiors in the establishment; and

(d) to carry out his obligations under  the contract  of apprenticeship.

(2) Every graduate or technician apprentice or       technician (vocational) apprentice undergoing  apprenticeship training shall have the following  obligations, namely:-

(a) to learn his subject field in engineering or  technology or vocational course conscientiously  and diligently at his place of training;

(b) to attend the practical and instructional  classes regularly;

) to carry out all lawful orders of his employer  and superiors in the establishment;

(c)     to carry out his obligations under the contract

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 30  

of apprenticeship which shall include the  maintenance of such records  of his work as  may be prescribed."

Section 13 regarding payment to apprentices which  reads  as under:

"13. Payment to apprentices \026  

(1) The employer shall pay to every  apprentice during the period of apprenticeship  training such stipend at a rate not less than the   prescribed minimum rate, or the rate which was  being paid by the employer on 1st January, 1970  to the  category of apprentices under which such  apprentices falls,  whichever is higher, as may be  specified in the contract of apprenticeship and the  stipend so specified shall be paid at such  intervals and subject to such conditions as may  be prescribed.         

       (2) An apprentice shall not be paid by his  employer on the basis of piece work nor shall he  be required  to take part in any output  bonus or  other incentive scheme."                 

                Section 14 deals with Health, safety and welfare of apprentices.          Section 15  deals with hours of work, overtime, leave  and holidays.           Section 16 deals with the employer’s  liability for  compensation for injury.

         Section 18 deals with the  Apprentices are trainees  and not workers which reads as under:

" 18. Apprentices are trainees and not  workers \026  

Save as otherwise provided in this Act, -        

(a) every apprentice undergoing apprenticeship  training in a designated trade in  an establishment  shall be a trainee and not a worker;  and

(b)     the provisions of any law with respect to  labour shall not apply to or in relation to such  apprentice."

     Section 19 deals with the  records and returns.       Section 20 deals with settlement of disputes which is  relevant for our purpose reads as under: "20. Settlement of disputes \026 (1) Any   disagreement or dispute between an employer   and an apprentice arising out of the contract of  apprenticeship shall be referred to the  Apprenticeship Adviser for decision.

      (2) Any person aggrieved by the decision  of the Apprenticeship Adviser under sub-section  (1) within thirty days from the date of  communication to him of such decision, prefer an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 30  

appeal against the decision to the Apprenticeship  Council and such  appeal shall be heard and  determined by a Committee of that Council  appointed for the purpose.

(3) The decision of the Committee under sub- section (2) and subject only to such decision of  the Apprenticeship Adviser under sub-section (1)  shall be final."

Section 21 deals with holding of test and grant of certificate  and conclusion of training which reads as under:- "21 Holding of test and grant of certificate  and conclusion of training \026 (1) Every  apprentice who has completed the period of  training shall appear for a test to be conducted  by the National Council to determine his  proficiency in the designated trade in which he  has served his apprenticeship training.              (2) Every  apprentice who  passes the  test referred to in sub-section (1)  shall be  granted a certificate of proficiency in the trade by  the National Council.

     (3) The progress  in apprenticeship  training of every graduate or technician  apprentice  technician (vocational) apprentice  shall be assessed by the employer from time to  time.

(4)     Every graduate or technician apprentice  or technician (vocational) apprentice who  completes his apprenticeship training to the  satisfaction of the concerned Regional Board,  shall be granted a certificate of proficiency by  the Board."

Section 22 deals with offer and acceptance of employment  which reads as under:

" 22. Offer and acceptance of employment  \026  (1) It shall not be obligatory on the part of the  employer to offer any employment to any  apprentice who has completed the period of his  apprenticeship training in his establishment, nor  shall it be obligatory on the part of the  apprentice to accept an  employment under the  employer.

   (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section  (1), where there is a condition in a contract of  apprenticeship that the apprentice shall, after  the successful completion of the apprenticeship  training,  serve  the employer, the employer  shall, on such completion, be bound to offer  suitable employment to the apprentice, and the  apprentice shall be bound to serve the employer  in that capacity for such period and on such  remuneration as may be specified in the  contract:

Provided that where such period   or  remuneration is not, in the opinion of the  Apprenticeship Adviser, reasonable, he may  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 30  

revise such period or remuneration so as to  make it reasonable, and the period or  remuneration so revised shall be deemed to be  the period or remuneration agreed to between  the  apprentice and the employer."

      Chapter  III of the Act  deals with the  authorities like  the powers of the  Apprenticeship Adviser, Powers of entry,  inspection, etc. Offences and penalties, etc.

        Section 37 deals with the power to make rules. In  exercise of this power Central Government in consultation with   Central Apprenticeship Council has framed  "The Apprenticeship  Rules 1992".          Rule 6   requires  that every employer shall send to  the Apprenticeship Adviser  the contract of apprenticeship for  registration  within three months of the date on which it was  signed.         Rule 7 deals with the period of apprenticeship training as may  be specified in the schedule.        Rule 8 deals with the termination of the apprenticeship which  reads as under: "8 Compensation for termination of  apprenticeship \026 Where the contract of  apprenticeship is terminated through failure on  the part of any employer in carrying out the terms  and conditions thereof, such employer shall be  liable to pay the apprentice compensation of an  amount equivalent to his three months last drawn  stipend.

       Rule   11 deals with  payment of stipend to  apprentices.         Rule  12  deals with the hours of work..         Rule 13  deals with the  grant of leave to apprentices.         Rule 14   deals with the records and returns.       In this background of the Act and Rules, the question  which  arises for  interpretation is what is the effect of  non- registration of the  contract because sub-section (4) of Section 4  read with Rule 6 require that every contract of apprentice shall  be sent by the employer to the apprenticeship adviser for  registration within three months. Therefore, in case the contract  of apprenticeship  is not sent to the apprenticeship  adviser for  registration  what will be the effect thereof ?          As per the scheme of the Act it appears that the  contract of apprentice is entered  with employer & apprentice,   and he has to undergo a training for fixed duration & he  will  get  stipend for that. After the   successfully undergoing training he  appears for  test  for certificate as required under Section 21.  During the training period  he will be treated as an apprentice  and he shall  not be deemed  as a workman  as per  Section 18  of the Act read with definition of ’workman’  under section 2(r).  It  is ordained in  sub-section (b) of Section 18  that provisions of  any law with respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to  such apprentices.  Therefore, on a reading of all the provisions  together what it transpires is that apprentices will be treated as  apprentice and he will not acquire a status of workman in that  establishment. After the successful completion of the training he  will  undergo a test and on being successful in the test a  certificate to that effect will be issued to him  as per Section 21.     It is open for the employer to offer him employment but it will not  be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to serve that employer  as per   Section 22   except   when there is  specific condition of  contract to that effect. During the course when he undergoes the  apprenticeship training he is only entitled to get stipend under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 30  

Rule 11 at such rate as are prescribed in the Rules.         

         Therefore a combined reading of  the Sections as  well as Rules  makes it clear that the apprentices are only the  persons undergo  training and  during that training they are  entitled  to get a particular stipend,  they have to work for a fixed  hours  and  at the end of  period of  training they have to appear   in the test and a certificate is issued to them. There is no  obligation on the part of the employer to give them any  employment whatsoever.  The position of the apprentice remains  as  an apprentice/a trainee and during the period of training they  will  not be treated as a workman.  Only obligation on the part of  the employer is to impart them training as per provisions of Act &  Rules and to pay them stipend as required under Rule 11 and  beyond that there is no obligation on the part of the employer to  accept them as his employees  and  give them a status of  workmen. There  is no relation of master & servant or employer  & employee.     In this background, we will examine the position vis a vis   the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and  Industrial Disputes  Act, 1947 and the Indian Boilers Act, 1923. In this connection, a  reference may be made to Section 2(z) of the U.P.Industrial  Disputes Act, 1947. This definition of the workman is pari materia  with that of the Industrial Disputes Act Section 2(s).  Section 2(z)  of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which reads as under:

" ’workman’  means any person ( including  an apprentice) employed in any industry to do  any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory,  technical or clerical work for hire or reward,  whether the terms of employment be expressed  or implied, and for the purposes of any  proceeding under this Act in relation to an  industrial dispute,  includes any such person  who  has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in  connection with, or as a consequence  of,  that  dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or  retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not  include any such person-

(i)     who is subject to the Army Act, 1950 or the Air  Force Act, 1950, or the Navy (Discipline)  Act,1934; or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as  an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii)who is employed mainly in a managerial or  administrative capacity; or

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory  capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred  rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the  nature of the duties attached to the office or by  reason of the powers vested in him, functions  mainly of a managerial nature."

          Since the definition of ’workman’ as given in Section 2(z)  of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is  pari materia with that  of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, no  useful purpose would be served by reproducing the definition of  ’workman’ as given in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,  1947. Our attention was also invited to Section 6(N) of the  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which lays down  the conditions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 30  

precedent to retrenchment of  workmen. Section 6(N) of the U.P.  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:     " 6N. Conditions precedent to  retrenchment of workmen.- No workman  employed in any industry who has been in  continuous service for not less than one year  under an employer shall be retrenched by that  employer until-

(a)     the workman  has been given one month’s  notice in writing indicating the reasons for  retrenchment and the period of notice has  expired or the workman has been paid in lieu  of such notice wages for the period of the  notice;

Provided that no such notice shall be  necessary if the retrenchment is under an  agreement which specifies a date for the  termination of service;

(b)     the workman has been paid, at the time of  retrenchment, compensation which shall be  equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for  every completed year of service or any part  thereof in excess of six months, and

) notice in the prescribed manner is served on  the State Government."

            It is  pari materia with that of Section 25(F) of the  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, no useful purpose  would be served by reproducing that definition.            In this connection, reference may be made to the  definition of ’Industrial Dispute’ as defined in Section 2(l) of the  U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which reads as under :           " (l) ’ Industrial Dispute’ means any  dispute or difference between employees  and employers, or between employers and  workmen, or between workmen and  workmen,  which is connected with the  employment or non-employment or the term  of employment or with the conditions of   labour, or any person; but does not include  an industrial dispute concerning-

(i)     any industry carried on by or under the  authority of the Central Government or by a  Railway Company, or

(ii)such controlled industry as may be  specified in this behalf by Central  Government, or  

(iii) banking and insurance companies as  defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,  or

(iv)a mine or an oil-field;"                                  This definition of ’Industrial Dispute’ is   pari materia

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 30  

with that of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as defined in  Section 2(k) but the definition of Section 2(k) is not as wide as  that of Section 2(l) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.  Therefore, the said definition is reproduced as under:

       " (k) " industrial dispute" means any  dispute or difference between employers and  employers, or between employers and  workmen, or between workmen and workmen,  which is connected with the employment or  non-employment or the terms of employment  or with the conditions of labour, of any  person;"

      Similarly, our attention was also drawn to  some of the  provisions of the Indian Boilers Act, 1923 which lays down as to  how the employer should maintain the boilers, and  prohibits  using uncertificated boiler.  It is required to obtain necessary  certification. It also deals with the penalties for breach of the  conditions for maintenance of the boilers.

   In the background of the provisions of the four  enactments, the main question which has been agitated by  learned counsel for the appellant is that if an incumbent is  appointed as an apprentice/trainee and even if a contract of such  apprenticeship has not been registered, then also he does not  cease to be an apprentice and his position does not become that  of a workman.  As against this, learned counsel for the  respondents has strenuously urged before us that non- registration of the contract of apprenticeship under sub-section  (4) of Section 4 of the Apprentices Act, 1961, with the  Apprenticeship Adviser would result in the breach of the contract   and  the status of an incumbent is changed from the apprentice  to that of a workman. Therefore, the question arose that whether  registration of the contract under sub-section (4) of Section 4 is  mandatory or directory and in case, it is a mandatory,  then what  is the effect, if it is directory, then what is the effect thereof. In  this connection, it was submitted that the word ’shall’ appearing  in sub-section 4 of Section 4 means the registration of the  contract is mandatory and if it is not registered then the contract  ceases and the incumbent becomes  workman.  In this  connection reference was made to a decision in  the case  of   P.T. Rajan vs. T.P.M. Sahir & Ors. reported in (2003) 8 SCC  498. It was also submitted that the Apprentices Act, 1961 is a  welfare legislation and it should be construed liberally for the  benefit of the  workman. In this connection, our attention was  drawn to the decisions of this Court in the cases of Air India  Statutory Corporation and Ors. Vs. United Labour Union &  Ors.   and  Secretary, H.S.E.B. vs. Suresh & Ors;  reported in (1997) 9  SCC 377  and (1999) 3 SCC 601. It was also submitted that the  nature of work and the nomenclature of the post is not decisive.  In this connection, our attention was also drawn to a decision of  this Court in the case of  Surya Prasad Singh and Anr. vs.  Labour Court II, Kanpur and  Anr. reported in  1995 Supp.(4)  SCC 38.     

Therefore, now going back to the basic question that in the  light of the aforesaid statutory provisions whether non- registration of the contract can render the contract void or illegal  and what is the result thereof. From the scheme of things it is  more than apparent that the Apprentices Act, 1961 is a complete  code in itself and it lays down the conditions of the apprentices,  what shall be their tenure, what shall be  their terms and  conditions and what are their obligations and what are the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 30  

obligations of the employer. It also lays down that the  apprentices are trainees and not workmen and if  any dispute   arises then the settlement has to be done by the Apprenticeship  Adviser as per Section 20 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and his  decision thereof is final. Now, under the scheme of these things,  it clearly shows that the nature and character of the apprentice is  nothing but  that of a trainee and he is supposed to enter into a  contract and by virtue of that contract he is to serve for a fixed  period on a fixed stipend.  This will not change the character of  the apprentice to that of a workman under the employer where  he is undergoing the apprentice training. Sub-section (4) of  Section 4 only lays down that such contract should be registered  with the Apprenticeship Adviser.  But by non-registration of the  contract, the position of the apprentice is not changed to that of a  workman. It is more than clear from the scheme of the Act,  the  apprentice is recruited for the purpose of training as defined in  Section 2(aa) of the Apprentices Act, 1961, that  an apprentice is  a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance  of a contract of apprenticeship and the apprenticeship training  has been defined under Section 2(aaa). That  clearly speaks that  an apprentice is to undergo apprenticeship training in any  industry or establishment under the employer  in pursuance of  the contract and in terms of the conditions pertaining to that  particular trade. Section 6 lays down that  what shall be the  period of training and Section 7 very clearly shows that  the  contract of apprenticeship shall terminate on the expiry of the  period of apprenticeship training. Therefore, it is more than clear  that the nature and character of the apprentice is that of a trainee  only and on the expiry of the training  there is no corresponding  obligation on the part of the employer to employ him which is  also very clear from the provisions of Section  7 that the  apprenticeship training shall terminate on the expiry of the period  of training. It  further makes clear that by virtue of Section 18 that  the apprentice trainees are not workers. It clearly lays down that  if an apprentice trainee is undergoing apprenticeship training in a  designated trade in an establishment, he shall be a trainee and  not a worker. It further contemplates that the provisions of   labour laws shall not apply in relation to such apprentice. In this  connection reference to definition of workman given in Section  2(r)  also emphasis that it will not include apprentice. Section 20  also lays down that how a dispute arising under this Apprentices  Act, 1961 can be settled. The authority for resolving such a  dispute has been given to the Apprenticeship Adviser. Therefore,  any dispute which arises with the apprentice and the employer  then remedy has been provided under this Act and not by way of  resorting to the Labour Court. Therefore, throughout the Act  stress has been  laid that the apprentices are never being  treated as workers.  Simply because the contract has not been  registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser, that will not change  the nature and character of the apprentices. It is true that sub- section (4) of Section 4 lays down that  the contract of  apprenticeship should be registered with the Apprenticeship  Adviser so that the Apprenticeship Adviser can monitor and keep  a record thereof. Just because  the contract of apprenticeship is  not registered that will not render the contract as invalid resulting  in change of status of an apprentice to that of a workman.  Section 21 further lays down that after the completion of the  training of the apprentice, an incumbent will have to appear for a  test to be conducted by the National Council to determine his  proficiency in the designated trade in which he has undergone  his apprenticeship training. Therefore, had there been an  intention of the Legislature to confer  them the status of a  workman then all the provisions would not have been warranted  at all. Section 22 makes it abundantly clear that at the end of the  apprenticeship training,  it is not obligatory on the part of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 30  

employer to offer an employment to an apprentice who has  completed the period of apprenticeship . It is only if the terms of  the contract of the apprenticeship lays down a condition that on  successful completion of an apprenticeship training, an employer  will offer him an employment then it is obligatory on the part of  the employer to do so. If there is no such condition stipulated in  the apprenticeship contract then the employer cannot be  compelled to offer employment to such apprentice.  At the same  time, it is not obligatory on the part of apprentice to serve that  employer if there is no such stipulation to this effect.   So it is  mutual thing & it depends on the terms of contract. The survey of  all these provisions of  the Acts and the Rules as mentioned  above, makes it clear that the character  & status of apprentice  remains the same  &  he does not become workman and labour  laws are not attracted.

          Now, coming to the question that the  expression  appearing in sub section (4) of Section 4,  "shall" should be   interpreted as mandatory.  It depends upon the context in which   such expression appears.  In order to interpret  the word  "shall"  appearing  in any enactment   one has to see the context  in  which it appears and the effect thereof.  We have already    quoted the  Introduction, Statement of Objects and Reasons   above.  The  Objects and Reasons reveal that the Act was  enacted for the purpose of  recruiting the apprentices for  developing a strong industrial base.  In order to have  a strong  industrial base, trained man power is essential and for that  purpose the Act   was enacted  so that  for  the industrial growth  in the country  the trained  man power is  made easily available.   The purpose is to train the people  for employing them in the  industries,  it was never the intention  that those trained   candidates  automatically become  the workmen.  Though  training was imparted by Private &  Public Sector but industry in  general did not fully organize  such programme.  Therefore, the  intention of the Act is  basically to recruit and  train person  capable of being  employed in the industries.  Apart from the   statement of Objects and Reasons we  have already  reproduced  above relevant provisions of the Act which clearly  contemplates  that such trained persons shall not fall  in the definition of the   workmen as the definition of workmen specifically excludes the  apprentices as defined in  Section 2 (r).   The definition makes it  clear that they are apprentices for a purpose undergoing a  training and in  Section  18  it has been clearly mentioned  that  they will not be treated as a workmen and  they will be treated as  a trainee and no labour laws  will apply  in relation to  such  apprentices.    Viewing the expression "shall"  in this context,    cannot be construed as a mandatory.    Sub-section (4) of  Section 4 only says that the contract of apprenticeship should be  forwarded to the Adviser  that is  purely   ministerial/administrative act so that  a proper record is  maintained by the Apprenticeship Adviser.    Nothing turns  beyond this.  It is purely administrative act and not  forwarding   contract of  the  apprenticeship to the Apprenticeship Adviser will  not change the character of the incumbent and it will not render  the contract of  apprenticeship invalid or void.    If the contract of  apprenticeship is to be treated as  a mandatory and  contract  is  not sent then the effect  will be that the apprentice will not be  entitled   to any benefit flowing from the Act.  In fact, by  treating   the expression "shall" here as a  mandatory  it will be more   counter productive to the interest of  the trainees rather than for  their  benefit.  The employer can take a shelter under the plea  that since the contract  of the employment has  not been  registered with the Apprentice Adviser, therefore, he  is not   under  any obligation to pay stipend to the apprentice trainees   and he is not under  an obligation to  impart the training to him

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 30  

also.    Had that been the intention  of the Legislature then  they  would have  provided the necessary penalty for breach of  the  non-registration of the contract of apprenticeship.  But that has  not been  done so because under Section 30 of the Apprentices  Act, 1961 any offence  arising under  this Act has been  penalized,  like apprentice who is not qualified  but he has been  engaged  or fails to  carry out  the terms and  conditions of   contract of apprenticeship or contravenes the provisions of  the  Act relating to number  of apprentices or  any information  required to be furnished or the apprentice has been  allowed to  work overtime without approval of the  Apprenticeship  Adviser or  employs an apprentice   on any  work which is not connected   with his training or  makes   any payment to apprentice on the  basis of  piece work or requires an apprentice to take part in any  output bonus or scheme.  These  breaches have been termed as    offences  and  have been made punishable.   But the  non- registration of it has not been construed to be an offence so as to  expose the employer for any penalty.  Therefore, the expression   "shall" appearing in sub-section (4) of Section 4 does not appear  to be mandatory.  Had that   to be construed to be mandatory it  will be doing  a great violence to the intention of the Act as  well  as  to the interest of the apprentices/trainees.  If the non- registration  is to result in the breach of a contract resulting in to  invalidity & unenforceable   then in that case it will  be oppressive   to the interest of the apprentices as the employer  can get away   by seeking a declaration  that the  apprentice contract was not  registered therefore he is not  under an  obligation  to abide by  the terms of the contract.    Therefore, viewing the expression   "shall" in this context, it  can not be construed to be mandatory  and it is directory.  In this connection, reference  may be made to  the decision of this Court in the case of   P.T. Rajan vs. T.P.M.  Sahir & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 498.        Their  Lordships observed   that context, purport and object of the statute  is to be  ascertained that whether "shall" to be construed as a  mandatory  or directory.  In that context,  their Lordships referred to an  earlier catena of decisions and  observed  "where a  statutory   functionary is asked to perform a statutory duty between  time  prescribed  same would be directory  and not mandatory.   Furthermore, a provision in a  statute which is procedural in  nature although employs the  word "shall" may not be held to be  mandatory if thereby no prejudice is caused.  The Court cannot  supply casus omissus."    Their Lordships have further observed  as follows:

" A statute must be  read in the  text and  context thereof.  Whether statute is a directory  or mandatory would  not  be dependent  on the  user of the word "shall"  or "may".  Such a   question  must be posed and answered  having  regard to the purpose and object it seeks to  achieve.  The construction  of statute  will  depend on the purport and object for which the  same had been  used."  

Therefore,  viewing the provision of this Act in the light of  the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that the  expression "shall"  appearing in sub-section (4) of Section 4   shall be construed directory  and not mandatory.  It was also submitted  by the learned counsel for the  appellants  that this is a labour legislation which should be  construed liberally  and in that  context our attention has been   invited  to a decision of this Court in  Secretary, HSEB  vs.  Suresh & Ors.  (1999) 3 SCC 601.   In this  case, their Lordships  held  that Court must decide  in interest of the public inspired by  principle  of  justice,   equity and good conscience.    Similarly,  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 30  

the case of   Air India Statutory Corpn.& Ors. Vs.  United Labour  Union & Ors. (1997) 9 SCC 377 ( though this case is no more a   good law  with regard to the Contract Labour   (Regulation and   Abolition ) Act 1970 because subsequent decision of the   Constitution Bench  has reversed  this decision in the case of   Steel Authority of India Ltd.  vs.  National Union Watrerfront  Workers  reported in (2001) 7  SCC 1.   But this case has been  cited in the context of the interpretation of  statute that  how   social  welfare  legislation should  be  interpreted.  In that context  their  Lordships have observed that  such a social legislation  providing for  a economic  empowerment to workers and poor  class a provision should be  considered in the  light of the  public  law principles not of private or  a common laws.  So far as the   philosophy behind   construing  a social legislation is concerned,   there is no two opinion, social legislation are primarily  meant for  welfare of the  particular  section of the society and it should be  construed liberally so as to  advance the  cause of the public at  large.  But the question is in the present case whether the  expression "shall" should be  read  mandatory so as to advance  the cause of the   apprentice  or not.  In our opinion,   viewing   from  social legislation point of view the word "shall" appearing in  sub-section (4) of Section 4  should be  construed as   directory   because it will be for the benefit of  the  apprentice trainee    otherwise it will be oppressive to the welfare of the apprentice as  the employer can get away by not getting the contract of  apprentice registered,   seeking  a declaration that this is  a  unregistered  document  and  all benefits flowing from  the Act  cannot be enforced against him.

  Therefore, we hold that the expression "shall" appearing  in sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Apprentices Act, 1961  is  directory and non-registration of  the contract will not change the  character of the  apprentice and they will not  acquire  the  status  of a workmen.  Once an incumbent is appointed as an  apprentice he will continue to be apprentice unless a formal  order  of appointment is followed.    It is also necessary to mention here that the definition of  the word ’workman’ as given  in Section 2(z) of the U.P.  Industrial  Disputes Act, 1947 and  Section  2(s) of the  Industrial  Disputes Act, 1947.  Both the definitions includes apprentice.   But the expression appearing in Section  2 (z)  of the U.P   Industrial Disputes Act  and Industrial Disputes Act 1947 are  not  applicable to the  apprentices appointed under the Apprentices  Act, 1961.  The Apprentices Act is a code  in   itself and it clearly   stipulates that in Section 2 (aa)     apprentice  means a person  who   is undergoing  apprenticeship training  in pursuance of   contract of training  and the workers are  employed for wages for  work done by them.  Section 18 clearly mentions  that the  apprentices are not workmen and "the provisions of any law  with  respect to labour law shall not apply  or in relation to such  apprentices".  Therefore, reading of  definition of apprentice in   Sections   2(aa)  and 2(r)  read with Section 18 of  the  Apprentices Act  leaves no manner of doubt that this Act which   is special Act  it does not cover the apprentices and it  precludes  the  application of any other  labour laws, i.e. U.P. Industrial  Disputes Act &  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.  When  both these  Acts are not applicable then labour court/industrial Tribunal will  not have any jurisdiction to entertain any dispute arising  therefrom.  The application of the U.P. Industrial  Disputes Act  1947 and the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 automatically stand  excluded.       In this connection reference  may be   made to a  decision  of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of  Hanuman  Prasad Choudhary  and Etc.  vs.    Rajasthan State Electricity  Board, Jaipur  1986 LAB I.C. 1014  wherein Justice S.C.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 30  

Agrawal  (as he then was)  observed thus:-        "An apprentice governed by the Apprentices Act is  not a workman  for the purpose of the Industrial  Disputes Act  and the provisions of the Industrial  Disputes Act would not  be applicable to him.

   There is  apparent conflict between the  provisions of S.2(s)  Industrial Disputes Act and  S.18 of the Apprentices Act inasmuch as S.2(s)  postulates that an apprentice is a workman to  whom the provisions of Industrial Disputes  Act  would be applicable whereas S.18 of the  Apprentices Act declares that an apprentice  governed by the Apprentices Act is not to be  treated as a workman and the provisions of the  Industrial Disputes Act would not be applicable  to  him.  The conflict between the two laws can be   resolved by applying the  principle of harmonious  construction.  Apprentices Act is not an  exhaustive  Act  to cover  all types of apprentices because in  view of the definition of term "apprentice" as  contained in S.2(aa) of the Apprentices Act, it is  applicable only to persons who are undergoing  apprenticeship training in pursuance of the contract  of Apprentices executed under S.4 of the said Act.   It is possible to visualise persons who may be  engaged as apprentices but who are not  covered  by the Apprentices Act.  In that view of the matter, it  can be said that for the purpose of S.2(s) of the  Industrial Disputes Act a person who is designated  as Apprentice but is not governed  by the  Apprentices Act  would be a workman governed by  the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.  But  an apprentice who is governed by the provisions of  the Apprentices Act would not be  a workman  under S.2(s) of he Industrial Disputes Act and  would not be governed by the provisions  of the  Industrial Disputes Act.

      Apart from  the principle of harmonious  construction, the Apprentices Act 1961 being a  subsequent  particular law as compared to I.D. Act,  1947 which is prior  and general , the provisions of  Apprentices Act 1961 would prevail over those  of   I.D. Act."    

                      Our attention was invited to a decision of Kerala High  Court in the case of Bhaskaran  vs. Kerala State Electricity  Board reported in 1986 KLT 447 wherein  Chief Justice Malimath  speaking for the Bench observed as under:           "In order to  answer the definitions of the  word "apprentice", two conditions are required  to be satisfied viz,    (1)  that the person is  undergoing apprenticeship  training and  (2)  that he is undergoing such training in  pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship. On  a plain reading of the definition of the  expression " apprentice" occurring in S.2 (aa)   it becomes clear that registration of a contract  of apprenticeship  not necessary  for the  person answering the description of the word  "apprentice".  Sub-section 4 of Section 4  contemplates the existence of  a concluded  contract of apprenticeship, which is required

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 30  

to be sent up for registration.  It therefore,  becomes clear that it is the existing contract of  apprenticeship that is required to be  registered and not that such contract becomes  a contract of apprenticeship only after it is  registered as required by sub-section 4 of   Section 4 of the Act.  As  it is admitted that   the petitioners have entered into a contract of  apprenticeship and were undergoing training  in pursuance of such a contract,  they satisfy   all the requirements  of  the definition of the  expression "apprentice" occurring in Section  2(aa) of the Act. That being the position, the  provisions of Section 18 of the Act come into  operation.  Therefore, the petitioners  cannot  be regarded as workers and therefore,  the  provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial  Disputes Act are not  attracted  to the facts of  the case."

       Similarly, the Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court in  the case of U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. vs. P.O.Labour  Court, Kanpur & Ors. reported in 1998 (78) FLR 511 observed  as under:-

                       " Section  18  of the Act provides  that an apprentice shall be a trainee and not a  worker and the provisions of any law with  respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation  to such apprentice. The respondent No.2 was  thus not a workman and no dispute could be  referred to the Labour Court and the period of  his training having come to an end, the action  of the petitioner employer in not engaging him  any further was in accordance with the contract  entered into between the parties and the  provisions of the Act."

       As against this our attention was also invited to a decision  of Division Bench of Gujarat High Court between  Ballkhan  Doskhan Joya and  Gujarat Electricity Board reported in 2002  (92) FLR 914. The Gujarat High Court  has taken the view that  as a result of non-registration of contract of apprenticeship an  incumbent shall not be deemed to be a trainee and he would be  covered by the definition of ’workman’ under Section 2(s) of the  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and he will get the protection of  Section 25-F of the said Act. Similarly, Single Judge of Gujarat  High Court took the same view in the case of State of Gujarat &  Anr. vs. Chauhan Ramjibhai Karsanbhai reported 2004 (102)  FLR 347.  And our attention was also invited to a decision of  Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.P. Electricity Board & Ors. vs.  Basant Kumar & Ors. reported in 1989 JLJ 253. This was a case  decided on the facts that the M.P. Electricity Board did not notify  the incumbent for a designated trade and employee continued  undergone apprentice training and it was not proved that the  concerned employee was  undergoing apprentice training.  It  was in that context it was found that the termination of services  of the incumbent was bad.

       In view of the conflicting decisions of the various High  Courts, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the  Rajasthan, Kerala and Allahabad High Courts appears to be in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 30  

consonance with the view taken by us and we do not agree with  the view subscribed by the High Courts of Gujarat and Madhya  Pradesh.

       In view of the legal position crystallized above, we shall  examine the individual cases. Civil Appeal No.2429/2003.

               Respondent No.1 , Shiv Mohan Singh was appointed  as a apprentice Boiler Attendant under the Apprentices Act, 1961  from 11.4.1985 to 10.4.1988 and underwent training of the  U.P.State Electricity Board. His contract was drawn up but not  registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser.  He completed his  three years training and a certificate to this effect was issued to  him and he was directed to appear before the National Council  and on passing thereof he was to be awarded a certificate of  proficiency as a Boiler Attendant. From this fact it is apparent  that he was appointed as an apprentice trainee in the designated  Trade of Boiler Attendant. After completion of his training his  services were terminated on 10.4.1988. It is clear from this fact  that he was a Boiler Attendant. He completed three years  training and after end of the training he was relieved as per the  terms and conditions of the appointment as an apprentice in  designated trade of Boiler Attendant and therefore he cannot be  declared to be a worker under the Act  he cannot claim the  benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or  under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In  this light the award given by the Labour Court in Award Dispute  No.166/1991 dated 12.8.1993 and the order dated 26.9.2002  passed in W.P.No.21560/1995 by the High Court cannot be  sustained. Civil Appeal is allowed. Both the orders of the High  Court dated 26.9.2002 and the award of the Labour Court dated  12.8.1993 are set aside. Civil Appeal No.7005/2003:                    In this case also respondent No.1- Ram Niwas Pal was  appointed on 31.3.1986 as an apprentice  in the designated  trade of Boiler Attendant and his serves were terminated on  31.3.1989. He also entered into a contract of apprenticeship and  the contract of apprenticeship was registered with the  Apprenticeship Adviser as per the reply sent by Shri  G.K.Chaturvedi, Principal and Asst. Apprenticeship Adviser,  I.T.I., Kanpur. So far as this case is concerned, there is no  manner of doubt that the contract of apprenticeship was  registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser and at the end of the  contract his services had been terminated as he was an  apprentice and an apprentice is not a workman. Therefore,  termination of service after the expiry of the contract period was  justified and the order passed by the Labour Court as well as by  the High Court cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Civil  Appeal is allowed and the award dated 28.12.1994 made in  Adjudication Case No.107/1991 by the Labour Court and the  order dated 12.4.2002 passed by the High Court in Civil Misc.  Writ .Petition No.15022 of 1995 are set aside. Civil Appeal No.7006/2003.                   In this case respondent No.2-Amar Nath Mishra was  appointed on 1.7.1987 as an apprentice in the designated trade  of Boiler Attendant and his services were terminated on  30.6.1990. A contract was entered into between respondent  No.2 and the employer-company. But the contract was not  registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser. As mentioned above,  as an apprentice trainee he cannot acquire the status of a  workman and therefore, he cannot get the benefit of Section  25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act as well as Section 6N of the U.P.  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As such the award dated  11.10.1993 made by the Labour Court in Industrial Dispute

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 30  

No.252/1992 and the order dated 12.4.2002 passed by the High  Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29962/1994 are set aside.  The Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No.8383/2003.

        Respondent No.1- Navneet Kumar Sharma was appointed  as an apprentice in the designated trade of Boiler Attendant on  9.3.1982 and his services were terminated on 8.3.1985. It is  alleged that his contract was not registered with the  Apprenticeship Adviser.  He raised the industrial dispute in 1994  which came to be registered as Industrial Dispute No.330/1994  before the Labour Court( 2nd), U.P. Kanpur. The allegation was  that he is a workman and his termination is bad because he has  already worked for more than 240 days but his services were  terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 6N  of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent No.1  approached the Labour Court after ten years and an objection  was raised by the employer in their affidavit in opposition before  the Labour Court. However, in view of the fact that the incumbent  was appointed as an apprentice under the Apprentices Act, 1961  in a designated trade of Boiler Attendant and that he is not a  workman and he is not entitled to the benefit of Section 6N of the  U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and secondly he raised the  dispute after ten years, therefore, the order passed by the  Labour Court dated 13.5.1998 and that of the Single Judge of  the High Court cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal is  allowed. Award dated 13.5.1998 passed by the Labour Court in  Industrial Dispute No.330/1994 and the order dated 15.7.2003  passed by the High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition  No.37450/1999 cannot be sustained and the same are set aside.

Civil Appeal No. 8384/2003.  

        Respondent- Jagat Pal was appointed on 19.9.1975 as an  apprentice  in the designated trade of Lineman under the  Apprentices Act, 1961. His services were terminated on  23.12.1978. The Labour Court in its award dated 9.11.1998 has  recorded a finding that respondent was appointed by the  Establishment on 19.9.1975 under the Apprentices Act, 1961  and he worked  up to 18.9.1978. A dispute was raised by the  employee which came to be registered as Industrial Dispute  No.90/1997 and an objection was raised by the Management  that the services had been terminated in 1978 and the dispute  has been raised in 1997. More so in view of the legal position as  mentioned above that the incumbent having been appointed as  apprentice under the Apprentices Act, cannot be treated as a  workman and consequently the award given by the Labour Court  on 9.11.1998 and affirmed by the High Court vide order dated  15.7.2003 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.16394/1999  cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the  order dated 15.7.2003 passed by the High Court and the award  passed by the Labour Court dated 9.11.1998 are set aside. No  order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No.9231/2003.                 In this case, a dispute was raised by the U.P.Rashtriya  Vidyut Shramik Sangh about six of its members who were  appointed as a trade apprentice and their services were  terminated illegally. Details of the members are as under:

Name of Incumbent         Period of service      Date of termination

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 30  

Abhitabh Chatterjee        21.4.1982 to 20.4.1983      21.4.1983 Sadhna Srivastava          19.10.1984 to 18.10.1985  19.10.1985 Suman Srivastava           19.10.1984 to 18.10.1985  19.10.1985 Prem Chandra                30.4.1986 to 29.4.1987      30.4.1987 Akhilesh Kumar               10.10.1988 to 9.10.1989    10.10.1989 Kumari Kiran                    10.10.1988 to 9.10.1989    10.10.1989

          The case of the Union was all these incumbents were  appointed  as apprentices in various trades and no contract form  was got filled up from them under the provisions of the  Apprentices Act, 1961 nor was the same registered nor any  examination of National Council was held for them nor any  certificate was issued to them, therefore they continued to be  workmen of the Management as per the Standing Orders of the  Management. The Management took the stand that they are  apprentices and they cannot be treated as  workmen. It was  stated on affidavit in reply by the Superintending Engineer  (Headquarters), Kanpur Electricity Supply Administration  (U.P.State Electricity Board, Kanpur) that all these incumbents  were appointed as apprentices for a period of one year as Clerks  7 to 9 years back and their services were terminated after the  expiry of apprentice period and the labour dispute was raised in  1996. It was also pointed out that the tenure of their  apprenticeship was for a period of one year. It was stated by him  that concerned persons were engaged as apprentices.

         Therefore, from these facts it is more than apparent that  these incumbents were appointed as trade apprentices in the  cadre of Clerk for a period of one year and after expiry of one  year their services  came to an end and as mentioned above, a  dispute was raised in 1996 and an award was passed by the  Labour Court treating them as workmen and giving them the  benefit of workmen. We are of the opinion that the view taken by  the Labour Court is absolutely erroneous  as they were  appointed as general clerks for a fixed period of one year and  after the expiry of fixed period their services automatically came  to an end and the dispute which has been raised is extremely  belated. They cannot be treated as workmen as they were  appointed as apprentices irrespective of the fact that the contract  was registered or not.  Therefore, the view taken by the Labour  Court as well as by the High Court cannot be sustained.  Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Award dated 16.11.2000  made by the Labour Court in Industrial Dispute No.236/1999 and  the interim order dated 19.9.2003 passed by the High Court in  Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.42446/2003 are set aside. No order  as to costs.

Civil Appeal No.9234/2003

        In this case, respondent Ashok Kumar was appointed on  the designated trade as Draftsman (Mechanical)  from 30.3.1991  to 29.3.1992. His allegation was that the contract of   apprenticeship was not entered in to between the parties and the  same was also not registered. He was treated as a regular  appointee. It was stated by the incumbent himself in his claim  petition before the Labour Court (Kanpur) that he was appointed  as an apprentice under the Apprentices Act, 1961 with effect  from 30.3.1991 to 29.3.1992 for training as a Draftsman and his  services were terminated on 30.3.1992. His case was that his  application was neither got registered from the I.T.I.Kanpur nor  was any course got done from him nor any NCTPT examination  was taken from him and no certificate was got issued to him from  the National Council and his services were taken as a regular  nature of Draftsman(Mechanical). The stand of the Management  was that he was appointed as Draftsman under the Apprentices

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 30  

Act, 1961 and after the expiry of the training period, his contract  automatically stood terminated and, therefore, he cannot claim to  have been appointed on the post of Draftsman. If there is any  dispute, this can be decided by the Apprenticeship Adviser under  the Apprentices Act, 1961. Before the Labour Court, respondent- Ashok Kumar examined himself as W.W.1 and he admitted that  he was kept on training of Mechanical Draftsman and used to  work as  Draftsman for Mechanical, Electrical and Civil and he  further admitted  that no contract was registered. From the  fact  that the incumbent himself had admitted that he was undergoing  training as apprentice under the Apprentices Act, 1961,  therefore, after expiry of the period of one year, he cannot claim  himself to be workman and more so, when his services were  terminated way back 1992 i.e.30.3.1992. After completion of the  training he cannot claim himself as workman and raise the  dispute in 1996. Therefore, in view of the legal position  crystalised above, we are of the opinion that the award dated  30.8.1997 given by the Labour Court and affirmed by the High  Court by judgment dated 15.7.2003 passed in the Civil Misc. Writ  Petition No.9153/1998 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the civil  appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court  dated  15.7.2003 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9153/1998 and the  award made by the Labour Court in Industrial Dispute  No.347/1996 are set aside. No order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No.9232/2003.

       Appellant-Lal Man Verma was appointed as an apprentice  on the post of Book Keeping and Accountancy Store on  8.1.1981. It is alleged that Book Keeping and Accountancy is not  a designated trade within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the  Apprentices Act, 1961.  It is further alleged that the contract of  service entered into between the parties was not sent to the  Apprenticeship Adviser for registration, therefore, it was not  registered and appellant was not imparted any training under the  Act, but appellant’s services were terminated with effect from  8.1.1982 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial  Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant raised an industrial dispute  and a reference was made under Section 4K of the U.P.  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the State Government to the  Labour Court. The Labour Court made the award in favour of the  appellant and held that the Management has failed to prove that  the appellant was appointed as an apprentice and held that the  appellant was not working as an apprentice but as a workman.  This award was challenged by the Management by filing a writ  petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.10370/1998 before the  High Court of Allahabad and the High Court allowed the writ  petition filed by the Management and set aside the award made  by the Labour Court holding that since the contract of  apprenticeship was entered in to between the parties and the  incumbent was appointed as an apprentice under the  Apprentices Act, 1961 and his contract was not sent for  registration to the Apprenticeship Adviser that will not change the  character of the incumbent. Hence, the present appeal by the  appellant by way of special leave.  Though in the grounds of the  Special Leave Petition an objection was taken by the appellant  that his trade is not covered by the designated trade within  Section 2(e) of the Act, this objection was never pressed before  the Labour Court nor was it pressed before the High Court.  Therefore, no finding has been given either by the Labour Court  or by the High Court whether this trade is covered by the Act or  not.  However, for the first time, the appellant has raised this  objection in his Special Leave Petition. Whether it is a  designated trade or not, it is a question of fact and since the  parties have not gone on trial on this issue nor this question has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 30  

been referred by the Government for decision of the Labour  Court, therefore, we cannot permit this question  to be raised at  this stage. Since it is a question of fact whether this trade is  covered by the designated trade or not and this question for the  first time sought to be agitated in the present appeal, it will not be  proper to permit the appellant to raise this question of fact at this  belated stage after a lapse of 21 years. An objection of delay  was raised before the Labour Court that the appellant has  approached the Labour Court after lapse of 11 years i.e. in 1993,  his services having been terminated in the year 1982. Therefore,  we do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the appellant and  the same is liable to be dismissed.

Civil Appeal No.9679/2003.

       Appellant- Ahmad Ali was appointed on 9.3.1982 in the   designated trade of Boiler Attendant under the Apprentices Act,  1961 and his services were terminated on 9.3.1985 and the  contract was entered in to between the parties though the same  was not registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser. But, in view  of the legal position crystalised above,  we are of the opinion that  since the appellant was appointed as a Boiler Attendant under  the Apprentices Act, 1961, and therefore his termination after the  expiry of the period of tenure of the contract, he cannot claim any  benefit and he cannot be designated as a workman. Therefore,  the view taken by the Labour Court is not correct and the High  Court has rightly set aside the  order of the Labour Court and we  uphold the approach of the High Court to this extent. The appeal  is dismissed and the order dated 15.7.2003 passed by the High  Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.11846/1‘998 to this extent is  upheld.

Civil Appeal No.9680/2003.

        Appellant- Rakesh Kumar Tripathi was appointed on  31.3.1986 in the designated trade of Boiler Attendant under the  Apprentices Act, 1961 and his services were terminated on  31.3.1989 and the contract  was entered between the parties  though the contract was not registered with the Apprenticeship  Adviser. But in view of the legal position crystalised above, we  are of the opinion that since he was appointed as a Boiler  Attendant under the Apprentices Act, 1961 and therefore his  termination after the expiry of the period of tenure of the contract,  he cannot claim any benefit and he cannot be designated as a  workman. Therefore, the view taken by the Labour Court is not  correct and the High Court has rightly set aside the order of the  Labour Court and we uphold the approach of the High Court to  this extent.  The appeal is dismissed and the order dated  15.7.2003 passed by the High Court in Civil Misc.Writ Petition  No.23762/1998  to this extent is upheld.

Civil Appeal No.9681/2003.                          Appellant-Jai Prakash Tiwari was appointed as apprentice  Cable Jointer on 31.3.1986 and his services were terminated on  31.3.1989. Contract of apprenticeship was entered in to between  the parties though not registered. The appellant raised industrial  dispute and the Labour Court gave an award in his favour. This  award was challenged by the Management holding that the  apprentice is worker. The High Court set aside the award in  favour of the Management. Therefore, the view taken by the  High Court is correct and there is no ground to interfere with the  same.  The Civil Appeal is dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 30  

Civil Appeal No.9683/2003

       Appellant- Urmila was appointed  as Switch Board  Attendant on 16.10.1984 under the Apprentices Act, 1961. Her  services were terminated on 16.10.1987. Apprenticeship contract  was entered in to between the parties but the same was not   registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser. The award given in  favour of the appellant by the Labour Court  treating her to be  workman and it was reversed by the High Court in a writ petition  filed by the Management and rightly so in our view in view of the  legal position mentioned above, we do not find any merit in this  civil appeal. Same is dismissed.

Civil Appeal No.122/2004.

       Appellant- Ashok Kumar Shukla was appointed in a  designated trade as an apprentice Boiler Attendant on 9.4.1985  and his services were terminated on 8.4.1988. A contract was  entered in to but not sent for registration to the Apprenticeship  Adviser. Labour Court made the award in his favour treating him  to be workman and on a writ petition filed by the Management  against the award, the High Court allowed the writ petition and  set aside the award of the Labour Court holding that since the  appellant is appointed as apprentice, therefore he cannot be  treated as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.   The view taken by the High Court is correct in view of the legal  position crystalised above. Hence, we not find any merit in this  appeal. Same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No.1965/2004.                          Respondent Virendra Kumar Bajpai was appointed  on 31.3.1986 as a Cashier under the Apprentices Act, 1961. His  services were terminated on 31.3.1987. He worked as a Cashier  (General)  which is not a designated trade. Contract was not sent  for registration to the Apprenticeship Adviser. The Labour Court  set aside the termination order. Against that a writ petition was  filed before the High Court and the High Court dismissed the writ  petition and the present appeal by way of special leave by the  Management. As per the award dated 29.4.1994, the respondent  himself admits that he was appointed as a Cashier on 31.3.1986  under the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and his  services were terminated on 31.3.1987 but no registration of the  apprenticeship was sent to the Apprenticeship Adviser. Since it  is the case of the respondent himself that he was appointed as  apprentice in the Branch as Cashier and his appointment was for  fixed period of one year, we fail to understand how can  respondent be given the benefit of Section 6N of the U.P.  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 after the expiry of the period of one  year. His services automatically stood terminated and he cannot   claim that he has become the employee of the Management. He  was a trainee for a period of one year as an apprentice in Cash  Branch and after the expiry of the period of one year he cannot  claim that he be treated as a workman. In this view of the matter,  his services stood terminated in 1987 and dispute was raised in  1993. Therefore, the view taken by the Labour Court as well as  by the High Court cannot be sustained and accordingly, we allow  this appeal, set aside the award dated 29.4.1994 made by the  Labour Court in Industrial Dispute No.277/1993 and the order  dated 14.7.2003 passed by the High Court in Civil Misc. Writ  Petition No.34389/1994.

Civil Appeal No.2193/2004.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 30  

               Respondent- Sushma Gupta was appointed on  1.7.1988 as an apprentice Clerk for a period of one year. She  was getting a salary of Rs.290/- per month. Since her work was  satisfactory hence the employer extended her tenure by one  year. Her services were terminated on 1.7.1990 without any prior  notice. She raised an industrial dispute and the matter was  referred for adjudication by the Labour Court. The appellant- Management filed their reply and pointed out that she was  recruited as an apprentice trainee as a Clerk for a period from  4.7.1988 to 3.7.1989 under the provisions of the Apprentices Act,  1961 and on completion of the training the Management is not  under an obligation to give her employment. It was also alleged  that the regular recruitment to the post of Clerk is done   by the  Electricity Service Commission according to the prescribed  Rules and it was pointed out that she was only appointed as  apprentice trainee and not recruited through the Electricity  Service Commission . Though the respondent has denied that  she was not appointed by the appellant-Management for training  but she was working against a regular post of the nature. The  Management examined four witnesses and they said that the  respondent was engaged for a training purpose only. They  produced the copy of the training form which was filled up by the  respondent as Ext.E/1 with her signature and she also admitted  her signature on the form which was filled up by her for training  purpose. The Management examined one Layak Singh as EW-1  who is  Head Clerk on the establishment of the Management and  he produced the agreement Ext.E/1 and it was pointed out that  after the completion of the training as apprentice her services  were terminated but on the recommendations she is allowed to  continue for some time.  From these facts it is more than  apparent that an agreement was filled up by the respondent- incumbent and she admitted herself her signature on that  agreement/contract. It may be that said agreement/contract has  not been sent for registration before the Apprenticeship Adviser  but the fact remains that she was recruited as apprentice and if  she was recruited  as apprentice then she cannot be treated as a  workman as discussed above in detail and therefore, the award  given by the Labour Court treating her to be workman under  Section 2(s) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be  sustained. This award made by the Labour Court was affirmed  by the High Court by order dated 15.7.2003 passed in Civil Misc.  Writ Petition No.30165/1999 filed by the Management  challenging the award of the Labour Court. The view taken by  the High Court in this case cannot be sustained in view of the  legal position already examined above. Hence, we allow this  appeal, set aside the order of the High Court as well as the  award made by the Labour Court. No order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No.9233/2003.

           Respondent-Avnindra Kumar Sharma was engaged in  the establishment of the appellants on 27.7.1991 due to death of  his brother on 11.10.1984 on humanitarian ground. It is alleged  that he was engaged as a apprentice under the apprentices Act,  1961 on the post of Switch Board Attendant without completing  the formalities. He was  engaged as apprentice by the Engineer  at 220 Grim Union, UPSEB, U.P., Kanpur. Then his services  were transferred to J.E., 132, K.V.Asainee, Dibiyapur, District.  Etawa. He was paid at the rate of Rs.330/- per month initially.  Thereafter, it was increased to Rs.380/- per month. It is alleged  that instead of accepting his demand for enhancement of salary,  the services were suddenly terminated on 27.7.1993. The case  of the Management is that neither he was appointed as a  workman nor his services were ever terminated and there was  no necessity of complying with the provisions of Section 6N of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 30  

the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.  It was contended that the  respondent applied to the Principal and Assistant Apprenticeship  Adviser, Industrial Training Institute, Kanpur and his name was  forwarded.  Thereafter, he was engaged for training for a  specified period of two years. The respondent  filed a rejoinder  and pointed out that neither any contract for apprenticeship was  registered with him nor any registration number was allotted to  him. The case of the respondent was that  he was  engaged as a  dependent of the deceased employee on a condition that after  training he will be made regular. He has already received a  compensation for the death of his brother. It is stated that at the  time of termination he was getting Rs.380/- per month whereas  under the Apprentices Act, 1961 he would have got Rs.700/-.  The Management examined one Shri R.P.Gupta, J.E., Dibiyapur  under whom he was working and he has stated that the  respondent was paid at the apprentice rate. The Management  also examined one Shri Mohammuddin Ansari, Head Clerk  (Construction Division). He has deposed that respondent has not  given any application as dependent of the deceased employee  and he also pointed out that as per Ext.E/2 the rules for  employment to the dependent of the deceased  employee there  is no provision to provide employment to the brother of a  deceased and he deposed that the name of the respondent  was  referred by the Apprenticeship Adviser according to Ext.E/3 and  respondent was selected as a Switch Board Attendant  apprentice. However, he pleaded that he cannot say that any  registration form was filled by the respondent or not.  Management also examined Shri S.R.Chowdhary, Sub- Divisional Officer, Etawa and he has deposed that the  respondent was working as a trainee under him and he admitted  that he worked from 1.12.1991 to 27.7.1993.l But the case of the  respondent was that he was employed as a brother of deceased  employee, but that cannot be sustained because there was no  provision for giving employment to the brother of the deceased  employee of the Board and the Labour Court also found that 26  names were sent by the Principal and Assistant Apprenticeship  Adviser. Respondent’s name appeared in that list and it was  stated that respondent has been selected for training as provided  under the Apprentices Act but neither any contract was executed  nor the same was registered. Therefore, in this context the  Labour Court came to the conclusion that though he was  recruited under the Apprentices Act, 1961 but no contract was  executed nor was it registered. The fact of the matter is that the  incumbent was recruited and appointed as apprentice Switch  Board Attendant, therefore, his recruitment for all purposes will  be deemed to be under the Apprentices Act, 1961. The case put  up by the respondent that he was employed on the basis of  being the brother of the deceased employee of the Board has  not been found established by the Labour Court and rightly so  because there is no provision for appointment of a brother of the  deceased as a dependent under the Rules. Therefore, his case  failed on that ground. From the above facts it  also transpires  that his name was sent by the Principal and Assistant  Apprenticeship Adviser for registering him as a trainee and he  has worked as a Switch Board Attendant for a period of two  years that is the tenure for the training and after the lapse of the  training his services were terminated. In these circumstances,  the view taken by the Labour Court cannot be sustained and the  respondent cannot be treated as a workman so as to be covered  by Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This  award has been upheld by the High Court on a writ petition filed  by the Management challenging the award. In view of the  position that emerges that the respondent was engaged under  the Apprentices Act, 1961 as a Switch Board Attendant for  a  period  of two years, as such, he cannot be treated as a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 30  

workman. Therefore, the view taken by the Labour Court in the  award dated 10.11.1998 in Adj. Case No.99/1998 and affirmed  by the High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.13481/1999  cannot be sustained.  The Civil Appeal is allowed. The order of  the High Court dated 15.7.2003 as well as the award dated  10.11.1998 made by the Labour Court is set aside.

Civil Appeal No.8386/2003.

       The case of the respondent-Manoj Kumar Shukla  is that  he was appointed on the post of Store Keeper as an apprentice  under the Apprentices Act, 1961 with effect from 10.10.1988.   His services were terminated on 9.10.1989. It is alleged that no  examination of National Council was undertaken and work was  taken from him as the regular worker. Further, the case of the  respondent is that he was not an apprentice under the  Apprentices Act and he was a workman under the U.P. Industrial  Disputes  Act, 1947 and his services were terminated on  10.10.1989 without following the provisions of Section 6N of the  U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the termination of his  services is illegal. Management contested the matter and pointed  out that the incumbent was appointed under the Apprentices Act  and he was not given any independent work of Store Keeper and  he appeared in the examination conducted by the National  Council and the incumbent was given regular training for Store  Keeper and the training period of the incumbent was for one year  and only after expiry of period of one year on 9.10.1989 his  services stood terminated automatically. Therefore, it is pointed  out that he cannot be treated as a workman as his appointment  was for a period of one year as an apprentice.                  However, Labour Court by its order dated 23.1.1995 found  that no document had been produced by the Management.  Although the respondent has produced documents/ certificates  Exts.W/1 and W/2  dated 6.11.1989 and 29.1.1990 issued by the  Management and the trade shown therein is that of the  Apprentice (Store Keeper) but no document of the registration  was produced. It was also stated by the Management that the  river side centre where respondent was working as a trainee was  closed on 7.1.1991 and the respondent was recruited by the  pKanpur Electricity Supply Administration (KESA) but still the  Labour Court concluded that the removal of workman- Manoj  Kumar Shukla is not constitutional, legal and he is entitled to full  wages. Then a review application was filed by the Management  and it was stated that the award was received in the office from  there it appears that certificate Exts.W/1 and W/2 issued by the  Management it is clear that incumbent was appointed as a Store  Keeper in the Power House and not in the river side Power  House and he never worked there and the river side Power  House has been closed. It was alleged by the Management that  they did not get proper opportunity to lead evidence to this effect.  The Labour Court observed that sufficient opportunity was given  to the Management but they failed to avail the same.

       However, it was admitted by the Presiding Officer that  there is an error that Manoj Kumar Shukla  was appointed in the  KESA and not in the river side Power House and this is the error  which crept in the award  dated 23.1.1995  and therefore he  rectified this error and it is also observed that since both the  parties agree that the incumbent was appointed in the KESA  at  Kanpur and not in the river side Power House, accordingly  the  award was modified to this extent. However, the award passed  by him on 23.1.1995 was upheld. Aggrieved by this order, the  Management filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court  and the High Court affirmed the award. After going through the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 30  

award as well as the order of the High Court it appears more  than apparent that there might have been failure on the part of  the Management to lead the evidence but the fact of the matter  is that it is the case of the applicant himself that he was  appointed as apprentice Store Keeper as is apparent from  Exts.W/1 and W/2. Therefore, we cannot loose sight of the fact  that he was appointed apprentice Store Keeper in the Power  House and after the expiry of the period of one year applicant  cannot claim to have been treated as workman. He was  appointed on 10.10.1988 to 9.10.1989 and he put  up the case  before the Labour Court that he was appointed as an apprentice  Store Keeper under the Apprentices Act, 1961. Now, he cannot  be permitted to deny that he was not appointed under the  Apprentices Act and he was appointed as a workman and  therefore he seeks the benefit of Section 6N of the U.P.  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He cannot be permitted to  withdraw from this position.  From Exts.W/1 and W/2, certificates  issued by the Management on 6.11.1989 and 29.1.1990, it is  apparent that he was shown as an apprentice Store Keeper. Just  because of the failure of the Management to defend the case  properly the benefit cannot be claimed by the workman.   Because of his own showing it is apparent that his appointment  was Store Keeper for a period of one year, therefore the award  given by the Labour Court cannot be justified. More so the  termination was in the year 1989 and he raised the dispute in  1993. Therefore, taking in to consideration all these factors, we  are of the opinion that respondent cannot claim any benefit of  being a workman. He was apprentice and after the completion of  the period of apprenticeship as a Store Keeper he has no right to  continue  and he cannot be treated to be a workman.   Accordingly,  the award given by the Labour Court dated  23.1.1995 and modified on 28.1.1997 are set aside, likewise the  order of the High Court affirming the award. Consequently, the  appeal is allowed.  

Civil Appeal No.14/2004.         The case of the respondent- Subodh Kumar was that he  was appointed to the post of a Clerk in August, 1981 and as per  the letter of the Electricity Board he had participated in the sports  events in 1982-1983 and also obtained three certificates.  He  worked on the post of Clerk till 16.2.1984 and his services were  terminated on the morning of 16.2.1984. Therefore, he raised  industrial dispute that since he has worked for more than 240  days as such he is a workman and entitled to the protection of  Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The   Labour Court found that there is non-compliance of Section 6N  of the Act and set aside his termination/ retrenchment. The  Electricity Board contested the matter and submitted that the  recruitment to the Electricity Board is regulated by the Rules for  appointment/ transfer/ selection/ promotion of employees and it  is also contended that in fact the respondent was engaged as an  apprentice trainee in the appellants’ organization under the  Apprentices Act, 1961 for one year. He started his training on  17.2.1983 and on completion of the one year training, his  services automatically came to an end on 16.2.1984 and it was  contended that according to Section 18 of the Act a trainee does  not fall under the definition of workman and accordingly labour  laws are not applicable to him and the Management is not  obliged to appoint him in the Department. The learned Labour   Court after considering the evidence and relying on the sports  certificates inferred that the incumbent was appointed as a  workman and not apprentice trainee. However, the Labour Court   disbelieved the evidence of Harish Chandra, WE-1 who deposed  that on the basis of Ext.E/1 the incumbent was selected  apprentice. Though, the incumbent has denied his own

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 29 of 30  

signature, Ext.E/1 is the application by the concerned workman  and Ext.E/2 is the list of the persons selected as the apprentice  trainees and name of the incumbent appears at Sl.No.96. But  curiously enough learned Labour Court has disbelieved them on  the ground that since respondent has denied his signature,  therefore, they should have produced the handwriting expert and  the list, Ext.E/2 in which name of the respondent appears at  Sl.No.96 was also disbelieved. The learned Judge says, " on  what basis it has been shown is not on record". He further goes  to say that if the workman has been engaged apprentice trainee  then an agreement ought to have been executed but no such  agreement is available on record.  He says that an agreement  should also be brought on record and same is to be proved and  in the absence of the same the story of the apprentice trainee  was subsequently developed and he held that respondent  cannot be deemed to be an apprentice trainee under the  Apprentices Act, 1961.  This finding of the learned Labour Court  appears  to be perverse on the face of it. Just on the basis of the  two sports certificates he has rushed to conclude that the  incumbent was appointed as a workman. The recruitment in the  Electricity Board is under service rules and when the evidence  has been produced, Ext.E/2, a list of the apprentices recorded in  pursuance of his application, Ext.E/1 and the name of the  incumbent appears at Sl.No.96, we fail to understand how such  primary evidence of the Management could be so lightly brushed   aside.  The application by the respondent and that name of the  respondent appears at Sl.No.96 of the list of the apprentices  go  to show  that he was apprentice and there was no necessity for  the Management to bring hand-writing expert to substantiate that  the application bears  the signature of the respondent when  there is already corroborating evidence available on record that  the name of the respondent appears  in Ext.E/2, list of the  apprentices and that has been proved by the Management,  that   is sufficient to show that the incumbent  was recruited as a  trainee apprentice and after the tenure of the period of  apprenticeship, his services came to an end. Just because his  agreement was not set for registration that will not change the  character of the incumbent as apprentice trainee.  Apart from  this, the service was terminated on 16.2.1984 and the dispute  has been raised in 1997. Unfortunately,  High Court has also  affirmed the same. The award as well as the order of the High  Court cannot be sustained on the basis of the fact that there is  primary evidence which goes to show that the incumbent was  recruited as apprentice trainee as  a Clerk for a period of one  year and after the expiry of one year he has no right to continue  and he cannot be treated as workman. The view taken by the  Labour Court in the award dated 2.1.1998 affirmed by the High  Court cannot be sustained. Consequently, we allow this appeal,  set aside the award of the Labour Court dated 2.1.1998 and the  order of the High Court dated 15.7.2003 in Civil Misc. Writ  Petition No.41027/1998. Civil Appeal No.8385/2003. Respondent \026Shiv Kumar Bhatia was appointed by  M/s.Kanpur Electricity Supply Administration, Kanpur on  31.3.1986 on the post of Store Keeper. The case of the  respondent was that his services were wrongly terminated by  order dated 31.3.1987 which was not legal. Therefore, he raised  an industrial dispute and the matter was referred to the Labour  Court and Labour Court found that  the Board has not produced  any evidence except the application vide 13-B on behalf of the  Management wherein it is stated that the contract was entered in  to between  one S.K.Bhatia and the Management under the  provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961. Though opportunities  were given to the I.T.I. Kanpur for producing the contract but  they did not file the contract alleged to have been entered in to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 30 of 30  

between workman and the Management. It was alleged that the  application was neither registered nor any certificate issued to  him after examination of the National Council and it was alleged  that the Management took the work from the respondent as a  permanent employee.  But they illegally terminated the services  on 31.3.1987. Though the Labour Court has held that the  respondent remained an apprentice although he was a workman  under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which establishes a  relationship of a master and servant between them and that the  Management terminated his services without complying  with the  provisions of Section 6N, therefore, it concluded that  the order  of termination/ retrenchment is bad.  The Management’s stand  was that he was an apprentice trainee from 31.3.1986 to  30.3.1987 and he cannot be treated as a workman and they led  evidence of Shri K.L.Mehrotra who submitted that the incumbent  was an apprentice trainee which is apparent from his own  application and a contract  was entered in to between concerned  workman and the Management. Shri Mehrotra stated that  contract was got signed for the work of apprentice but the same  is not available in the official record. The learned Labour Court  on these facts inferred that formalities required under the  Apprentices Act, 1961 were not complied with and therefore, the  incumbent shall be treated as a workman and accordingly                                        granted relief. Once it is accepted by the Labour Court that the  incumbent was recruited under the Apprentices Act, 1961 though  the formalities might not have been completed/ produced but the  fact remains that it is the finding of the Labour Court that the  incumbent was appointed under the Apprentices Act, 1961,  which is apparent from the period that is 31.3.1986 to 31.3.1987  ( one year) which is a normal period for training for apprentice  Store Keeper and after the end of this period respondent was not  allowed to continue. It is apparent that he worked for a period of  one year and the Management has produced his application that  he was apprentice trainee but just because they could not  produce the contract that will not change the character of the  appointment of the incumbent. The Labour Court has observed,  "since  the Management has not complied with the formalities  required under the Apprentices Act, 1961 therefore, the  concerned workman is not an apprentice". This pre-supposes  that the Labour Court accepted the incumbent as apprentice  under the Apprentices Act though the necessary formalities  might not have been completed that would not change the  character of the incumbent from the apprentice to workman. The  character of the incumbent as an apprentice trainee cannot be  changed as he owes his existence under the Apprentices Act,  1961 and after the tenure of one year his services were bound to  come to an end and he cannot convert this character of a trainee  to an employee of the Management. Apart from this, the services  were terminated way back March 1987 and the dispute was  raised in 1994. Therefore, the view taken by the Labour Court  of  treating the respondent apprentice/ trainee  to that of a workman  cannot be sustained, likewise the order of the High Court dated  15.7.2003 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19422/1999 whereby  this order of the Labour Court has been affirmed by the High  Court. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of  the High Court dated 15.7.2003 as well as the award dated  13.5.1998 made by the Labour Court.  No order as to costs.