STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ANR. versus TATA ENGINEERING & CO, LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD.

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 199 · Decided: 08-10-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
";-
-I 
EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE 
CORPORATION AND ANR. 
v . 
199 
TATA ENGINEERING & CO, LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. 
AND ANR. 
October 8, 1975 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Employees State Insurance Act, 1948-Sec. 2(9)-An apprentice whether 
an employee. 
The appellant contended before the Industrial Tribunal. that the apprentices 
to which the Employees Sta\e Insurance Act, 1948 
a~phes. 
The factory 
employs besides regular employees, two sets of apprentices. Gradua~e appren• 
tices for a period of two years and Trade apprentices for the durat10n of 
3 
years. 
The graduate apprentices receive stipend of Rs. 250 /- per month for 
the first year and Rs. 300 /- per month during the se~nd year. pie 
tr~de 
apprentices receive stipend of Rs. 21-. Rs. 2.50 and Rs. 3.00 per diem dunng 
the first second and third years of the apprenticeship respectively. No further 
emolum~nt is paid to the apprentices. 
A deed of apprenticeship is signed by 
the company, the apprentice and the surety by which the company 
agree_s 
to provide ta the apprentice necessary t~ai~ng in its factory .ai;id t?at after the 
apprentices successfully pass the exammatton after the trammg 1s completed 
they would be considered for. ab"°rption as skilled worker although the Com-1 
pany is not _under a legal obl1gat10n to offer them employment. Another term 
provides that the apprentices would during the period of apprenticeship dili-
gently and faithfully serve the Company and to the utmost power and skill 
attend to the Company's business. 
The apprentices- give a bond for serving 
the Company for 5 years after their training is successfully completed .. 
The appellan~ contended -before the Industrial Tribunal that the apprentices 
are employees within the meaning of the Act. 
The Tribunal did not accept 
the appellant's contention. The High Court rejected the writ petition filed by 
the appellant. 
On an appeal by certificate under Art. 133(1) (a) 
and (b) 
of the Constitution it was contended by the appellant that the words "serve 
the Company" appearing in the apprenticeship agreement introduce a relation 
of master and servant. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
HELD : _ ( 1) _ The word "apprentice" is _not defined in the Act. In ordinary 
F 
acceptation of the term apprentice a relationship of master and servant is not 
established in law. - The dictionary m~aning does not accept such a relationship. 
Th€'. heart of the matter or the dormnant object in apprenticeship is the intent 
to impart_ OI)- th\) part of ~e employer and to accept on the part of the other 
person learmng under certam agreed terms. Such a person remains a learner 
and not arr ~mp!oYee. The fact that certain payment is made does not convert 
the appre!llice mto a regular employee. 
An examination of the provisions 
of .the enure a&reement !~ads us to the conclusion that t~e pr,incipal object with 
which the parties enter mto the agreement of apprent1cesh1p was offering by 
G 
the employer an opportunity to learn the trade or craft and the other person 
to acquire such knowledge. 
[201F, 2020-F] 
(2) The Apprentices Act, 1850, defines an apprentice as a person who fa 
undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated trade in 
pursuance of a 
contract of apprenticeship. 
Whenever the legislature intends to 
include an 
apprentice in the definition of a worker it has expressly done so for instance 
while defining a worker under s. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Adt 1947. 
Th~ H 
very next year while passing the Employees State Insurance A~t. 1948 the 
Legislature did not choose to Include apprentice while defining the word' em-
ployee. 
Such a deliberate omission on the part of the Legislature can be only 
14-Ll276 SCI/75 
A 
B 
200 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 197 6] 1 S.C.R. 
attributed .to the well known concept of apprenticeship which the Legislature 
assumed and took note of for the purpose of the Act. The apprentices are not 
given the wages as defined by s. 2(22) of the Act. 
The apprentices are not 
covered within the definition of the emple1yees under s. 2 ( 9) of the Act. They 
are not entitled to the daily allowances and other allowances to which the 
regular employees are entitled. 
The apprentice is, therefore, not an employee 
within the meaning of s. 2(9) of the Act.. 
[202G-H, 203-ll'-D, 204-B-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal ::\o. 2113 of 1969. 
From the Judgment and Order dated the 3rd May, 1966 of the 
Patna High Court at Patna in Misc. J. Ca

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