It is customary in many industries to accept trainees in various trades and occupations as apprentices. An apprentice is considered as a person who is bound by a legal agreement to serve an employer for an agreed period and in return for that an employer is bound to instruct him in the trade or occupation. Many a times, such apprentices are subsequently absorbed by industries as regular workers after successful completion of their apprenticeship.

A question often arises whether such apprentices are entitled to the same protection and benefits as regular workers under various labour laws. If their apprenticeship contract is either not explicitly extended or terminated and they continue to work with the employer after the stipulated period of apprenticeship, are they by implication entitled to claim employment benefits as regular workers?

The definition of workmen under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 expressly includes apprentices. However, this definition has been held by various judicial pronouncements to include only those who work in the capacities of skilled or unskilled manual, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory capacities. In case of the supervisory staff, a monthly wage limit of Rs 1,600 is also prescribed under the definition. Those who work in supervisory capacity at more than the prescribed wage limit, as well as those who work in managerial or administrative capacity are excluded from the definition of workmen under the Act.

A subsequent Parliamentary legislation, the Apprentices Act of 1961 defines an apprentice in Section 2 (aa) to mean “a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated trade in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship. Section 18 of the Act provides that apprentices are trainees and not workers and provisions of any law with respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to such apprentices.

In view of the legal provisions under the Apprenticeship Act and the definition of workers under the Industrial Disputes Act, question arose in a recent case wherein the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether protection against the termination of an apprentice under the Industrial Disputes Act was available to an Apprentice Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC).

In the case of Mukesh Tripathi v/s Senior Divisional Manager, LIC (2004-8-SCC-387), the appellant was appointed by LIC on 16 July 1987 as Apprentice Development Officer on a monthly fixed stipend. The terms of contract of apprenticeship provided he was likely to be appointed as Probationary Development Officer upon successful completion of apprenticeship period. However, the other conditions of the same contract included that such apprentices were liable to be discharged from service without notice during the apprenticeship period. The services of such Apprentice Development Officers were terminated in terms of this stipulation of the apprenticeship contract upon which the employees raised an industrial dispute regarding their purported retrenchment in contravention of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The LIC raised a contention that the appellants are not workers under the Industrial Disputes Act and hence Section 25-F is not applicable. The employees contended that the work performed by the Development Officers was neither managerial nor supervisory in nature. Hence, they remained workers under the Industrial Disputes Act. The corporation contended that even if a person does not perform either managerial or supervisory duties in order to hold him a workman it must be established that he performs skilled, unskilled, manual, technical, supervisory or clerical work for hire or reward. Since it is not established in this case that the employees are performing any of these jobs, they cannot be accepted as falling under the definition of workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, the contract of apprenticeship under which these employees were recruited explicitly mentions that it was only on completion of the apprenticeship period and their work and conduct being found satisfactory, they can be appointed as Probationary Development Officers. Thus, without such appointment order, they cannot be presumed to be workers even if the corporation has continued them after completion of their apprenticeship contract. The LIC said in the absence of any proof provided by the employees that their status has conclusively changed from apprenticeship to regular workers, their argument cannot be accepted.

In another Supreme Court judgment in the case of the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board vs Shiv Mohansingh and Another (2004-8-SCC-402), Justice N.Santhosh Hegde and Justicde A K.Mathurt held that an apprentice is not a workerr under the employer where he is undergoing the apprenticeship training and Section 7 of the Apprenticeship Act clearly shows that the contract of apprenticeship shall terminate on expiry of the period of apprenticeship training. There is no obligation on the part of the employer to give them any employment whatsoever and similarly, apprentices are not bound to continue to work for him, the court said. There is no relation of master and servant or employer and employee between the employer and his apprentice trainee. Even if the contract of apprenticeship is not registered by an employer as is required under the Act, the same does not become a nullity. The status of an apprentice does not change to that of a worker only because the contract of apprenticeship has not been registered by the employer. Even when such contract is not registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser, the apprentices continue to enjoy the rights of apprenticeship under the Act and an employer is bound to fulfill his obligations towards them.

In this case, Shiv Mohan Singh and many other workers were appointed as apprentices (Boiler Attendant or in various other designated trade categories under the Apprentices Act of 1951) and underwent training in the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board. Their contracts were drawn up but not registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser. They completed their training and a certificate to this effect was issued. They were directed to appear before the National Council and on passing thereof awarded a certificate of proficiency. After completion of their training, they were relieved as per the terms and conditions of the appointment as an apprentice. A question was raised on their termination as apprentices whether non-registration of the contract of apprenticeship under Section 4 of the Apprentices Act would render their appointment and continuation as apprentices invalid and thereby give them a right to claim the status of workers under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court held that though registration of the contract is necessary under the Apprentices Act, the schemes of the Apprentices Act, 1961 as well as the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 make it clear that non-registration of contract is merely an irregularity and does not render the contract of apprenticeship either illegal or void and therefore, workers cannot be deprived of the benefits of being an apprentice. Similarly, they cannot claim the status of regular employment without any such stipulation in the contract of apprenticeship itself. The requirement of regisration of an apprenticeship contract with the Apprenticeship Adviser is an administrative one to facilitate proper record keeping.

The Supreme Court in this connection referred to a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hanuman Prasad Choudhary vs Rajasthan State Electricity Board (1986-LabIC-1014-Raj), in which it was decided that when there is an apparent conflict between the provisions of two legislations, as is evident from the definition of workers in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which includes apprentice in the definition of workers and Section 18 of the Apprentices Act, which categorically declares that an apprentice governed by the Apprentices Act is not to be treated as a worker and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act would not be applicable to an apprentice. The court said such conflicts should be resolved by applying the principle of harmonious construction. The Apprentices Act is not an exhaustive Act to cover all types of apprentices but is applicable only to persons who are undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of the contract of apprentices executed under Section 4 of the Act. It is possible to visualize persons who may be engaged as apprentices but not covered under the Apprentices Act. Therefore, a person who is appointed as an apprentice but not governed by an Apprentices Act would be a worker only if he fulfills the required conditions under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. But an apprentice who is governed by the Apprentices Act would not be a worker under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Apart from the principle of harmonious construction, the Apprentices Act 1961 being a subsequent particular law as compared to the Indusitrial Disputes Act, the provisions of the Apprentices Act would prevail over those of the Industrial Deisputes Act. Thus, when the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable, the apprentice whose contract is terminated upon completion of training, cannot claim the benefits of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act for either notice or compensation.

It was also clarified in the judgement that the Apprenticeship Act was enacted for recruiting apprentices for developing a strong industrial base by providing trained manpower. It was not the intention of the legislature to provide that tose trained candidates automatically should become regular workers.