LexTHE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE versus M/S. CENTRAL AERCANUT AND COCA MARKETING AND PROCESSING CO-OP LTD., MAN GALORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE " v. MIS. CENTRAL AERCANUT AND COCA MARKETING AND PROCESSING CO-OP LTD., MAN GALORE .. B JANUARY 30, 2006 [ARIJIT PASAYA':' AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] , i labour laws: c Employees Pr, vident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952--Section 2(/)-'Employee'-Definition of-Apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act or under the Standing Orders excluded from the definition--Concerned trainees were paid monthly stipend during training and had no right to employment, nor any obligation to accept employment, if offered by employer- D Therefore, they were 'apprentices' engaged under the 'Standing Orders' of the establishment and not employee in terms of S.2(/) of the Act- Hence not entitled to provident fund-Apprentices Act, 196/-Section 2(au)- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946-Section I 2A -Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946-Standing Order No. 2, clause (g). E Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, I 946-Section I 2-A- Standing Orders not certified in the concerned establishment-Hence, model Standing Orders prescribed under the Rules deemed applicable--lndustrial .. Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946-Rule f(l) and Schedule F I to the Rules. 45 persons were selected to undergo training at the Chocolate factory of the Respondent on a monthly stipend. It was clearly stipulated that the said 45 trainees were not entitled to claim any right of appointment after completion of training period and that any trainee leaving the factory within G one year was required to refund the amount received by him as stipend. High Court held that the said 45 trainees were not covered by the Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 as they cannot be called -..... "employees" as defined under Section 2(1) of that Act. In appeal to this Court the question which arose for consideration is H 892 > ) REG. PROVI. FLl~llCOMMR " CENT. ,\ERC,l~UT &COCA MARKET AND PRO. CO-OP. L TO 893 whether an apprentice can be dee.med to be an employee within the meaning A of Section 2(1) of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. From a bare reading of Section 12~A of the Industrial B Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 it is manifestly clear that until the Standing Orders are finally certified and come into operation, the prescribed model standing orders shall be deemed to be adopted in the concerned establishment. The Model Standing Orders prescribed under Rule 3(1) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946 are contained C in Schedule I to the said Rules. 'Apprentice' is defined in clause (g) of Standing Order No.2. (896-B, El 1.2. In the present case, the Standing Orders were not at the relevant point of time certified. Therefore, in terms of Section 12-A of the Standing Orders Act, the Model Standing Orders are deemed to be applicable. 1896-Fl D 2.1. Section 2(1) of the Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act defines an employee to include an apprentice, but at the same time makes an exclusion in the case of an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act or under the Standing Orders. Under the Model Standing Orders an apprentice is described as a learner who is paid allowance during the period E of training. [896-G I 2.2. In the case at hand, trainees were paid stipend during the period of training. They had no r'ight to employment, nor any obligation to accept any employment, if offered by the employer. Therefore, the trainees were 'apprentices' engaged under the 'Standing Orders' of the establishment. F (896-H; 897-A) 2.3. Hence, it cannot be said that the concerned 45 trainees were employee in terms of Section 2(1) of the Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act. In other words, an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices G Act or under the Standing Orders is excluded from the definition of an 'employee' as per Section 2(1) of the Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act. (897-B) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 978 of2000. From the Judgment and Order dated 12.8.1999 of the Karnataka High H 894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS j2006j I S.C.R. A Court in Writ Appeal No. 6143 of 1998. B Harish Chandra, Ms. Anita Sahani and Shail Kumar Dwivedi for the Appellant. Devender Singh and Sushi! Balwada for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.