LexMUKESH K. TRIPATHI versus SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
MUKESH K. TRJPA THI
v.
SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 6, 2004
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE, S.B. SINHA AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, I947-Section 2(s) and 25F-Apprentice Act,
I 96 I-Sections 2(k) and 18-Apprentice Development Officer of Life Insurance
Corporation of India-Held: He was not a workman as he did not establish
A
B
that he performed skilled, unskilled, manual, technical or operational duties; C
mere fact that his duties were neither managerial nor supervisory was
insufficient-It was more so as he could not organise or develop business
of Corporation without becoming a full-fledged officer of the Corporation-
His termination during apprenticeship without notice in terms of conditions
of appointment found to be valid-Life Insurance Corporation of India D
(Apprentice Development Officers) Recruitment Scheme, 1980.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 2(s)-Workman-Held: Merely
· because duties performed by a person are neither managerial nor supervisory,
he could not be deemed to be a workman; he must further plead and prove
that those duties could be categorised as skilled, unskilled, manual, technical E
or operational, and also that he was not covered by the provisions of the
Apprenticeship.Act, 1961.
Apprentice Act, I96I-Sections 2(k) and 18-Industrial Disputes Act,
1947-Section 2(s)-Apprentice-Workman-Extension of apprenticeship
period-Held a further written contract carrying out such intention need not
be executed-But in case where a person is allowed to continue without
extending the period of apprenticeship either expressly or by necessary
implication and regular work is taken from, he may become a workman--
Change in status from apprentice to a workman must be proved either by
novation of contract or by conduct of parties.
Industrial Disputes Act, I947- Section 2(s)-Interpretation of-Held:
. Though this definition of 'workman' in interpretation clause is exhaustive
and deserves to be given a broader meaning, it is necessary to keep in view
scheme of the object and purport of the statute which may take a person out
127
F
G.
H.
128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A of the said definition-It is more so as the interpretation section begins with
the words ··'unless the context otherwise requires'.
B
Words and phrases-Apprentice-Meaning of
Appellant was appointed as Apprentice Development Officer in
L.I.C. His services were terminated during the period of his
apprenticeship in accordance· with the terms and conditions of his
appointment without notice to him. Contendin~ that he was retrenche_d
in contravention of Section 25F of the Industrial D:sputes Act, 1947 he
raised an industrial dispute which was referred to Industrial Tribunal.
C The Tribunal held that since he was discharged after completion of
apprenticeship period, he was workman within the meaning of Section
2{s) of the Act. Writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 against this
· award was allowed·.
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that as works
D
performed by him were neither managerial nor supervisory in nature,
he would be deemed. to be a workman.
Respondents contended that appellant was not workman. Relying
on Life Insurance Corporation of India (Apprentice Development
E
Officers) Recruitment Scheme, 1980, respondent argued that since
appellant was appointed and confirmed as Development Officer, the
question of his becoming a workman would not arise.
F
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. It is true that the definition of 'workman' as contained
in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is exhaustive. The
interpretation clause contained in a statute although may deserve a
broader meaning having employed the word 'includes' but therefor also,
it is necessary to keep in view the scheme of the object and purport of
G the statute which takes him out of the said definition. Furthermore, the
interpretation section begins with the words 'unless the context otherwise
requires.' (141-D, E]
Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi & Ors., (2004) 5 SCC 409;
Sri Chittaranjan Das. v. Durgapore Project Ltd. & Ors., (1995}2 CLJ 388;
H Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. State o/Saurashtra and Others, AIR
-
:
M.K. TRIPATHI v. SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
129
(1957) 264 and Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of A
Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR (1958) SC 353, referred to.
2.1. A 'workman' within meaning of Section 2(s) of the IExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.