NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPN. LTD. versus V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 821 · Decided: 10-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

..... 
NATIONAL SMALL "INDUSTRIES CORPN. LTD. 
A 
v. 
V. LAKSHMINARA YANAN 
NOVEMBER I 0, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
B 
Apprentice Act, 1961-s.18-Respondent appointed as apprentice-
Required to undergo training period of two years-Removed from service-
Held: His case is covered by s.18 of Apprentice Act and not s.2(s) of Industrial C 
Disputes Act, 1947-Lahour laws. 
In 1987, respondent-workman joined as casual labourer in Marketing 
Division of appellant on daily wages. Respondent was performing dispatch 
work, remitting money by going to the regional office, cleaning articles and 
delivering goods. While working with the appellant, he was called for direct D 
interview for the post of Apprenticeship trainee (Shop Assistant) and was 
selected as per Order dt. 26th April 1990. The training period was for two 
years. On 1st May, 1992, he was removed from service. Respondent raised 
industrial dispute. Labour Court held that the respondent had been performing 
a full-time job and hence his dismissial from service was not justified and 
ordered reinstatement with back wages. Appellant unsuccessfully filed writ E 
petition before High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, question for consideration is whether the 
respondent was, a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the lndustiral 
Disputes Act, 1947 or an apprentice trainee within the meaning of Section 
18 of the Apprentice Act, 1961. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the court 
HELD:l. The respondent's case was covered by the provisions of Section 
18 of the Apprentice Act, 1961. Both the Labour Court as well as the High 
Court erred in proceeding on the basis that the respondent was a workman to G 
whom the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would be applicable. 
(830-D-E) 
2. Under Section 2(s) of 1947 Act, 'workman' includes an apprentice 
However, Section 18 of the 1961 Act defines that apprentices are trainees 
~I 
H 
822 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A and not workers. Thus, on the one hand while an apprentice is also treated to 
be a workman for the purpose of the 1947 Act, by virtue of Section 18 of the 
1961 Act, it has been categorically provided that apprentices are not workers 
and the provisions of any law with respect to labour shall not apply to or in 
relation to such apprentice. [828-A, B, DJ · 
B 
3.1. Leiter dated 29th April, 1992, written by the respondent to the 
appellant-corporation indicate that he had been appointed as Sales Assistant 
(Apprentice) for a period of two years with effect from 3rd May, 1990 and the 
period was to expire on 2nd May, 1992. In this letter, the respondent requested 
the appellant-corporation to consider his absorption on a permanent basis in 
view of the fact that he had been working in the organization for six years. It 
C is only on 5th February, 1993, that the respondent's lawyer wrote to the 
appellant-corporation indicating that at the interview held on 13th April, 1990 
for appointment to the post of Apprentice Trainee (Shop Assistant), it had been 
agreed to absorb him in Group 'D' Category after completion of his 
apprenticeship. From the aforesaid documents it would be evident that even if 
D the respondent had been working on a daily-wages basis prior to his 
appointment as Apprentice Traniee (Shop Assistant), at least from 3rd May, 
1990 till 2nd May, 1992, he was working as an apprentice on a consolidated 
salary. Other than the assertion made on behalf of the respondent that the 
appellant had agreed to absorb the respondent in Group 'D' Category as Peon/ 
Shop Assistant afte completion of apprenticeship and the recommendation said 
E to have been made by the General Manager indicating that the respondent 
could be appointed and taken as a permanent worker, there is no other 
material to support the case made out by the respondent. In the absence of 
any such mMerial, it is difficult to understand the reasoning of the Labour 
Courf that the respondent was not an "apprentice trainee" but a "workman" 
F who was made to perfrom a full-time job under the guise of an Apprentice 
Trainee. [829-B-H] 
3.2. The High Court appears to have been impressed by the resoning of 
the Labour Court with regard to the finding that although designated as an 
apprentice, the respondent was not undergoing training, but was _an employee 
G doing full time work in the establishment. Such a view, is not supported by 
the materials on record and is completely contrary to the appo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.