Holding

An apprentice Development Officer who does not perform skilled, unskilled, manual, technical or operational work is not a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and his termination during apprenticeship without notice is valid.

Summary

The appellant, Mukesh K. Tripathi, was appointed as an Apprentice Development Officer in LIC and was terminated during his apprenticeship without notice. He claimed that his dismissal violated Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, arguing that he was a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s). The Supreme Court examined whether an apprentice who performs neither managerial nor supervisory duties can be deemed a workman and considered the effect of the Apprentices Act, 1961, which excludes apprentices from the definition of workman unless they perform skilled, unskilled, manual, technical or operational work. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove that his duties fell within any of those categories and that he remained an apprentice, not a workman, at the time of termination. Consequently, the termination was valid under the apprenticeship scheme and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The appellant's status as a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the termination of an apprentice without notice is permissible under the apprenticeship scheme.
Whether the Apprentices Act, 1961, excludes the appellant from the definition of workman.
The proper interpretation of the definition of "workman" in light of subsequent amendments and case law.

Legislation cited

Apprentices Act, 1961s. 18, s. 2(k)
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 25F, s. 2(s)

Subjects

workmanapprenticeshipIndustrial Disputes Actretrenchmentterminationdefinition of workmanLICSection 2(s)Section 25FApprentices Actstatutory interpretation

Judgment

- MUKESH K. TRJPA THI
v.
SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC AND ORS.
A

SEPTEMBER 6, 2004

[N. SANTOSH HEGDE, S.B. SINHA AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] B

Industrial Disputes Act, I947-Section 2(s) and 25F-Apprentice Act,
I 96 I-Sections 2(k) and 18-Apprentice Development Officer ofLife Insurance
Corporation of India-Held: He was not a workman as he did not establish
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 F
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. G.
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
H.
127
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'.
-
Words and phrases-Apprentice-Meaning of
:
Appellant was appointed as Apprentice Development Officer in
B 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.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

F 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 Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 must not only establish that he is not covered by the
provisions of the Apprenticeship Act but must further establish that he B
is employed in the establishment for the purpose of doing any work
contemplated in- ~he· definition. Even in a case where a period of
apprentieeship is extended, a further written contract carrying out such
·intention need not be executed. But in a 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, C
he may become a workman. (141-A, BJ

2.2. In case any person raises a contention that his status has been
changed from apprentice to a workman, he must plead and prove the.
requisite facts. In absence of any pleading or proof that either by novati~n
of the contract or by reason of the conduct of the parties, such a change D
has been brought about, an apprentice cannot be held to be workman.
(141-C, DJ

H.R. Adyanthaya and Others v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. and Others, (1994)
5 sec 737, followed.
E
S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra and Another, (1983) 3 SCR 799,
(1983) 4 sec 214, overruled.

Management of Mis May and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen,
AIR (1967) SC 678; Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, (1964) 3
SCR 560 and Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distribution Co. of India Ltd. v. F
Burmah Shell Management Staff Assn., [1970J 3 SCC 378, relied on.

3.1. The term 'employee' under various labour laws has been defined
by different expressions but Section 18 of the Apprentice Act, 1961
carves out an exception to the applicability of labour laws in the event G
the concerned person is an apprentice as contradistinguished from th~
expressions 'worker', 'employee' and 'workman', used in different
statutes. [138-H; 139-AJ

Sri Chittaranjan Das. v. Durgapore Project Ltd. & Ors., (1995) 2 CLJ
388, referred to. H
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 3.2. The Scheme framed by the Corporation although is not a
statutory one but the same governs the terms and conditions of
appointment of Apprentice Development Officer. [133-F)

Halsbury 's Laws of England, 4th Edn. Vol. 16, referred to.

B 3.3. The provisions of the Scheme framed by the Corporation
conform to the provisions of the Apprentice Act and .Rules framed
thereunder. It is worth noticing that Provident funds and insurance
have been specified to be a 'designated trade' within the meaning of
Section 2(k) of the Apprentices Act, 1961 by an notification No. G.S.R.
C 463(E), dated 23rd August, 1975. [140-D)

4.1. From a perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it does not appear
that the Appellant herein had adduced any evidence whatsoever as regard
the nature of his duties so as to establish that he had performed any
D skilled, unskilled, manual, technical or operational duties. The offer-of
appointment dated 16.7.1987 read with the Scheme clearly proved that
he was appointed as an apprentice and not to do any· skilled, unskilled,·
manual, technical or opera~ \onal job. The onµs was on the Appellant to
prove that he is a workman. He failed to prove the same. Furthermore,
the duties and obligations of a Development Officer of the Corporation
E by no stretch of imagination can be held to be performed by an
apprentice. [137-G, H; 138-A)

4.2. The appellant could not have organized or developed the
business of the Corporation without becoming a full-fledged officer of
the Corporation. Only an officer of the Corporation duly appointed can
F
perform the functions of recruiting agents and take steps for organizing
and developing the business of the Corporation. (138~B]

S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra and Another, (1983) 3 SCR 799,
[1983) 4 sec 214, referred to. ,
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1208-1209
of 2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.1.99 of the Allahabad High Court
in C.M.W.P. Nos. 30393/96 and 28474 of 1998 .
.H
M.K. TRIPATHI v. SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER [SINHA, J.) 131

Ms. Indira Jaisingh, Bharat Sangal, Ms. Sangeeta Panicker and R.R. A
Kumar for the :Appellant.

K. Ramamoorthy, Rajappa, Sri Ram J. Jhalapathy, Mrs. Nagarajan and
G.D. Gupta for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B
S.B. SINHA, J. : These appeals are directed against a judgment and
order dated 8.1.1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
in Civil Misc. Writ Petitions No. 30393of1996 and 28474of1998 whereby
and whereunder the writ petitions filed by the Respondent herein were C
allowed setting aside an award dated 28.5.1996 passed by the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur.

The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

The Appellant was appointed by the Life Insurance Corporation oflndia D
(hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as "the Corporation")
on or about 16. 7.1987 as Apprentice Development Officer. The relevant
terms and conditions contained in the offer of appointment are as under:

"2. You will be taken, at the outset, as an Apprentice for a period
of one year commencing from 16.7.1987 on a stipend of Rs. 1250 E
per month, and will be given two months theoretical training at
Divisional Office, Kanpur and thereafter the (sic) mont~ s Branch
training followed by Field Training in a Branch as may be decided
to us. You will faithfully and diligently apply yourself to the course
of training fixed for you and carry out all orders and directions given
to you. F

3. On completion of the apprenticeship period, if your work and
conduct are found satisfactory, you will be appointed as a
Development Officer on probation on a monthly basic pay of Rs.
700/- and such other allowances as are admissible in accordance G
with staff Regulations.

4. During the period of apprenticeship, you shall be liable to be
discharged from service without any notice.

7. You are not entitled to any travelling allowance for joining the Ii
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Training Centre at Division Office, Life Insurance Corporation of
India, Kanpur."

The services of the Respondent were tenninated purported to be in tenns
of para 4 of the said offer of appointment by a letter dated 14. 7.1988.
Contending that he has been retrenched in contravention of Section 25F of
B the Industrial Disputes Act, the Appellant herein raised an industrial dispute
whereupon the Central Government by a notification dated 23rd August,
1991 referred the following dispute for adjudication of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur (for short "the
Tribunal"):
c "Whether the action of the Divisional Manager, LIC of India,
Kanpur, in discharging Sri Mukesh Kumar Tripathi from service
w.e.f. 14.7.88 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled?"

D Before the Tribunal a contention was raised by the Respondent No. 1
herein that the Appellant is not a workman within the meaning of Section
2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

By reason of its award dated 28.5.1996, the Tribunal held that in view
E of the fact that the Appellant was discharged after the completion of the
apprenticeship period, he must be held to be a workman within the meaning
of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Respondent No. I filed a wrjt petition before the Allahabad High
Court questioning the said award. Before the High Court, the Appellant
F herein relied upon a decision of this Court in S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra
and Another, [1983} 3 SCR 799 : [1983] 4 SCC 214 in support of its
contention that a Development Officer of the Corporation is a workman.

The High Court, however, relying on or on the basis of a Constitution
Bench decision of this Court in H.R. Adyanthaya and Others v. Sandoz
G (India) Ltd and Others, [1994] 5 sec 737 held that as therein S.K. Verma
(supra) was held to have been rendered per incuriam, it was no longer a good
law. The writ petition was allowed on that premise.

Ms. Indira Jaisingh, learned senior counsel appearing on beh;ilf of the
H Appellant would contend that in S.K. Verma (supra) this Court upon taking
M.K. TRIPATHI v. SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER [SINHA, J.) 133

into consideration the works perfonned by a Development Officer came to A
the conclusion that as neither the same are managerial or supervisory in
nature, he would be deemed to be a workman and, furthennore, in view of
the fact that the said decision has not been overruled by this Court in HR.
Adyanthaya (supra), the High Court has committed a manifest error in
passing the impugned judgment. B
Mr. K. Ramamoorthy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondents, on the other hand, would submit that in H.R. Adyanthaya
(supra) a Constitution Bench of this Court has clearly laid down the law that
even if a person does not perfonn managerial or supervisory duties, with a
view to hold that he is a workman, it must be established that he performs C
skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire
or reward and as it has not been established that the Appellant herein
performed any of the jobs enumerated in Section 2(s) of the Act, he is not
a workman.

The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to a Scheme known I)
as the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Apprentice Development Officers)
Recruitment Scheme, 1980 (for short "the Scheme'') for the purpose of
showing that an Apprentice Development Officer is a person recruited for
training and subsequent appointment to the cadre of Development Officers.
It was submitted that as the Appellant was appointed in terms thereof, unless E
he was appointed and confirmed as a Development Officer the question of
his becoming a workman would not arise.

The Scheme framed by the Corporation although is not a statutory one
but the same governs the terms and conditions of appointment of Apprentice
Development Officer. An Apprentice Development Officer is a person
R
recruited for training and subsequent appointment to the cadre of Dev~lopment
Officer. Clause 4 of the Scheme lays down the eligibility criteria for
recruitment as also the recruitment procedure. Clause 5 of the said Scheme
provides for apprenticeship and training. The period of apprenticeship is one
year. During the said period, the Apprentice is required to undergo G
theoretical training at training centre for two months, training in a selected
rural branch for one month and a field training for a period of nine months.
An Apprentice Development Officer is paid a monthly stipend. The period
of apprenticeship is not counted as service for any purpose including
seniority, increments, gratuity, etc.
H
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
;;.-
A Clause 6.1 of the Scheme provides that an Apprentice Development
Officer may be discharged at any time without any notice or without
assigning any reason whatsoever. Only upon satisfactory completion of the
apprenticeship period, an Apprentice Development Officer is appointed as a
Development Officer on probation, the period wherefor is also one year. The
B terms and conditions of service of a Development Officer are governed by
the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960.

The question as to whether a sale representative is a workman within
the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act came up for
consideration before a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Management of
C Mis. May and Baker (India) Ltd v. Their Workmen, AIR (1967) SC 678
wherein upon considering the definition ~fworkman, as it then stood, it was
held:

"9 At that time the definition of the word "workman" under S. 2
(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act did not include employees like
D Mukerjee who was a representative. A "workman" was then defined
as any person employed in any industry to do any skilled or
unskilled manual or clerical work for hire or reward. Therefore,
doing manual or clerical work was necessary before a person could
be called a workman. This definition came for consideration before
E industrial tribunals and it was consistently held that the designation
of the employee was not of great moment and what was of
importance was the nature of his duties. If the nature of the duties
is manual or clerical then the person must be held to be a' workman.
On the other hand if manual or clerical work is only a small part
of the duties of the person concerned and incidental to his main work
F
which is not manual or c.lerical, then such a person would not be
a workman. It has, therefore, to be seen in each case from the nature
of the duties whether a person employed is a workman or not, under
the definition of that word as it existed before the amendment of
1956, The nature of the duties of Mukerjee is not in dispute in this
G case and the only question, therefore, is whether looking to the
nature of the duties it can be said that Mukerjee was a workman
within the meaning of S. 2 (s) as it stood at the relevant time. We
find from the nature of the duties assigned to Mukerjee that his main
work was that of canvassing and any clerical or manual work that
H he had to do was incidental to his main work of canvassing and
M.K. TRIPATHI v. SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER [SINHA, J.) 135

could not take more than a small fraction of the time for which he A
had to work. In the circumstances the tribunal's conclusion that
Mukerjee was a workman is incorrect. The tribunal seems to have
been led away by the fact that Mukherjee had no supervisory duties
and had to work under the directions of his superior officers. That,
however, would not necessarily mean that Mukerjee's duties were B
mainly manual or clerical. From what the tribunal itself has found
it is clear that Mukerjee's duties were mainly neither clerical nor
manual. Therefore, as Mukerjee was not a workman his case would
not be covered by the Industrial Disputes Act and the tribunal would
have no jurisdiction to order his reinstatement..."
c
A similar view was taken by this Court in Western lnd_ia Match Co.
Ltd. v. Workmen, [1964] 3 SCR 560 and, Burmah Shell Oil Storage &
Distribution Co. of India Ltd. v. Burmah Shell Management Staff Assn.,
[1970] 3 sec 378 and in other cases.

A Division Bench of this Court, however, without noticing the D
aforementioned binding precedent, in S.K. Verma (supra) held that the duties
and obligations of a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of
India being neither managerial nor supervisory in nature, he must be held
to be a workman. Correctness of S.K. Verma (supra) came up for
consideration before a Constifution Bench of this Court in HR. Adyanthaya E
(supra). Referring to this Court's earlier decisions in May and Baker (supra),
Western India Match Co. (supra) and Burmah Shell Oil Storage (supra), it
was observed that as in S.K. Verma (supra) the binding precedents were not
noticed and furthermore in view of the fact that no finding was given by the
court as to whether the Development Officer was doing clerical or technical
work and admittedly not doing any manual work, the same had been rendered F
per incuriam.

The Constitution Bench summarized the legal position that arose from
the statutory provisions and from the decisions rendered by this Court, stating

"Till 29-8- I 956 the definition of workman under the ID Act was G
confined to skilled and unskilled manual or clerical work and did
not include the categories of persons who were employed to do
'supervisory' and 'technical' work. The said categories came to be
included in the definition w.e.f. 29-8-1956 by virtue of the Amending
Act 36of1956. It is, further, for the first time that by virtue of the H
>
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Amending Act 46 of 1982, the categories of workmen employed to
do 'operational' work came to be included in the definition. What
is more, it is by virtue of this amendment that for the first time those
doing non-manual unskilled and skilled work also came to be
included in the definition with the result that the persons doing
skilled and unskilled work whether manual or otherwise, qualified
B to become workmen under the ID Act."

Considering the decisions in May and Baker (supra), Western India
Match Co. (supra), Burmah Shell Oil Storage (supra) as also S.K. Verma
(supra) and other decisions following the same, this Cour:t in HR. Adyanthaya
c (supra) observed:

"However, the decisions in the later cases, viz., S. K. Verma [1983]
4 sec 214: [1983] sec (L&S) 510: [1983] 3 SCR 799, Delton.
cable [1984] 2 SCC 569: [1984] SCC (L&S) 281 : [1984] 3 SCR
169, and Ciba Geigy [1985] 3 SCC 371 : [1985] SCC (L&S) 808
D
: [1985] Supp 1 SCR 282 cases did not notice the earlier decisions
in May & Baker (1961) 2 LLJ 94: AIR (1967) SC 678 : (1961) 2
FLR 594) WIMCO [1964] 3 SCR 560: AIR (1964) SC 472: (1963)
2 LLJ 459, and Burmah Shell [1970] 3 SCC 378 : [1971] 2 SCR
758 : AIR (1971) SC 922 : [1970] 2 LLJ 590 cases and the very
E same contention, viz., if a person did not fall within any of the
categories of manual, clerical, supervisory or technical, he would
qualify to be workman merely because he is not covered by either
of the four exceptions to the definition, was canvassed and though
negatived in earlier decisions, was accepted. Further, in those cases
the Development Officer of the LIC, the Security Inspector at the
F
gate of the factory and Stenographer-cum-Accountant respectively,
were held to be workmen on the facts of those cases. It is the
decision of this Court in A. Sundarambal case [I 988] 4 SCC 42 :
[I 988] SCC (L&S) 892 which pointed out that the law laid down
in May and Baker case (196 l) 2 LLJ 94 : AIR (1967) SC 678 :
G (1961) 2 FLR 594 was still good and was not in terms disowned."

The Constitution Bench although noticed the distinct cleavage of

..
opinion in two lines of cases but held:

" ...These decisions are also based on the facts found in those cases.
H
M.K. TRIPATHI v. SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER [SINHA, J.] 137

They have, therefore, to be confined to those facts. Hence the A
position in law as it obtains today is that a person to be a workman
under the ID Act must be employed to do the work of any of the
categories, viz., manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,
clerical or supervisory. It is not enough that he is not covered by
either of the four exceptions to the definition. We reiterate the said B
interpretation."

The said reasonings are, therefore, supplemental to the ones recorded
earlier viz.: (i) They were rendered per incurium; and (ii) May and Baker
(supra) is still a good law.
c
Once the ratio of May and Baker (supra) and other decisions following
the same had been reiterated despite observations made to the effect that S.K.
Verma (supra) and other decisions following the same were rendered on the
facts of that case, we are of the opinion that this Court had approved the
reasonings of May and Baker (supra) and subsequent decisions in preference D
to S.K. Verma (supra).

The Constitution Bench further took notice of the subsequent
amendment in the definition of 'workman' and held that even the Legislature
impliedly did not accept the said interpretation of this Court in S.K. Verma
(supra) and other decisions. E

It m:ay be true, as has been submitted by Ms. Jaisingh, that S.K. Verma
(supra) has not been expressly overruled in HR. Adyanthaya (supra) but once
the said decision has been held to have been rendered per incuriam, it cannot
be said to have laid down a good law. This Court is bound by the decision F
of the Constitution Bench.

From a perusal of the award dated 28.5.1996 of the Tribunal, it does
not appear that the Appellant he~ein had adduced any evidence whatsoever
as regard the nature of his duties so as to establish that he had performed
any skilled, unskilled, manual, technical or operational duties. The offer of G
appointment dated 16. 7 .1987 read with the Scheme clearly proved
that he was appointed as an apprentice and not to do any skilled,
unskilled, manual, technical or operational job. The onus was on the
Appellant to prove that he is a workman. He failed to prove the same.
Furthermore, the duties and obligations of a Development Officer of the H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Corporation by no stretch of imagination can be held to be performed by an
apprentice.

Even assuming that the .duties and obligations of a Development
Officer, as noticed in paragraph 8 of S.K. Verma (supra), are applicable in
B the instant case, it would be evident that the Appellant herein could not have
organized or developed the business of the Corporation without becoming
a full-fledged officer of the Corporation. Only an officer of the Corporation
duly appointed can perform the functions of recruiting agents and take steps
for organizing and developing the business of the Corporation No area
furthermore could be allotted to him for the purpose of recruiting active and
C reliable agents drawn from different communities and walks of life in view
of the categorical findings of the Tribunal that he had been working as an
apprentice. If organizing and developing the business of the Corporation and
to act as a friend, philosopher and guide of the agents working within his
jurisdiction were the primary duties and obligations of a Developmept
D Officer, an apprentice evidently cannot perform the same.

We may consider the matter from another angle, viz., the appointment ·
of the Appellant as an apprentice under the Scheme vis-a-yis the Apprentices
Act, 1961.

E · The expression 'Apprentice' has been included in the definition of
'workman' contained in Section 2(s)~f:th~_ln~li~trial Disputes Act, 1947 but
by reason of a subsequent Parliamentary legfsfation, namely, Apprentices
Act, 1961 (the 1961 Act), the term 'apprentice' has been defined 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
F the 1961 Act provides that apprentices are trainees and not workers save as
otherwise provided in.the Act. Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 18 of the 1961
Act read thus :

"(a) every apprentice undergoing apprenticeship training in a
designated trade in an establishment shall be a trainee and not a
G
worker; and

(b) the provisions of any law with respect to labour shall not apply
to or in relation to such apprentice."

H The term 'employee' under various labour laws has been defined by
M.K. TRIPATHI v. SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER [SINHA, J.] 139

different expressions but Section 18 of the 1961 Act carves out an exception A
to the applicability of labour laws in the event the concerned person is an
apprentice as contra-distinguished from the expressions 'worker', 'employee'
and 'workman', used in different statutes.

'Apprentice' under the general law means a person who is bound by
a legal agreement to serve an employer for an agreed period and the
B
employer is bound to instruct him. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn.
Volume 16, it is stated :

"586. Fonn and parties. A contract ofapprenticeship is unenforceable
if it is not in writing. Usually the contract is effected by deed under c
which the apprentice is bound to serve a master faithfully in a trade
of business for an agreed period and the master undertakes to give
the apprentice instruction in it and either to maintain him or pay his
wages. Technical words are not necessary.

An apprentice cannot be bound without his own consent,
D
and consent without execution of the instrument is insufficient. The
instrument must be executed by the apprentice himself,
for no one else has a right to bind him. In the case of a
minor his father or mother or other guardian, although not necessary
parties to the contract, usually execute it too in order to covenant E
for the apprentice's due perfonnance of the contract sine"e, in the
absence of a local custom, an apprentice who is a minor cannot be
sued on his own covenant. A contract of apprenticeship is binding
on a minor only if it is on the whole beneficial to him.
F
It is not essential that the master should execute a deed of
apprenticeship, but where a master had in fact executed one part of
an instrumer.t of apprenticeship, a recital in that part of the
instrument that the apprentice had bound himself apprentice to the
master is evidence against the master th<!t the apprentice had
executed the other part of the instrument. A corporation may take G
an apprentice."

'Apprentice', as noticed hereinbefore, is defined to mean a person who
is undergoing apprenticeship training pursuant to a contract of apprenticeship.
How a contract of apprenticeship would be entered into is to be found in sub- H
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A section (1) of Section 4 of the 1961 Act. The embargos placed in this regard
are: (i) entering into a contract of apprenticeship with a minor in which
event the contract must be executed by his guardian; and (ii) on such terms
or conditions which shall not be inconsistent with any provision of the Act
or any rule framed thereunder.
B
Furthermore, the apprentice must satisfy the statutory rtquirements
as regard qualification to be appointed as an apprentice.

Training of apprenticeship by reason of sub-section (2) of Section 4
shall be deemed to have commenced on the date on which the contract of
c. apprenticeship has .been entered mto under sub-section ( 1) thereof.

The provisions of the Scheme framed by the Corporation conform to
the provisions of the Apprentices Act and Rules framed thereunder. It is
worth noticing that Provident funds and insurance have been specified to
D be a 'designated trade' within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the
Apprentices Act, 1961 by a notification No. G.S.R. 463(E) dated 23rd
August, 1975.

The definition of 'workman' as contained in Section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 includes an apprentice, but a 'workman'
E defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 must conform to the
requirements laid down therein meaning thereby, inter alia, that he must
be working in one or the other capacities mentioned therein and not
otherwise.

F We may further notice before the Tribunal a contention was raised
by the Appellant that upon expiry of the period of one year he was
appointed as. a probationary officer but the said plea was categorically
rejected by the Tribunal holding :

"7. The concerned workman has also pleaded that after expiry of
G one year he was appointed as Probationary Development Officer.
No date of issuance of such order has been filed. In its absence
the version of the concerned workman is disbelieved and it is held
that concerned workman after expiry of apprenticeship was not
appointed as Probationary Development Officer. Instead he
H continued to work as Apprentice."
M.K. TRIPATHI v. SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER [SINHA, J.) 141

A 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial A
Disputes Act, 1947 must not only establish that he is not covered by the
provisions of the Apprenticeship Act but must further establish that he is
employed in the establishment for the purpose of doing any work contemplated
in the definition. Even in a case where a period of apprenticeship is extended,
a further written contract carrying out such intention need not be executed. B
But in a 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 him, he may become a workman. A person who
clairfrs-·himself to be an apprentice has certain rights and obligations under
the statute.
.c
In case any person raises a contention that his status has been changed
from apprentice to a workman, he must plead and prove the requisite facts.
In absence of any pleading or proof that either by novation of the contract
or by reason of the conduct of the parties, such a change has been brought
about, an apprentice cannot be held to be workman. D

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 E
is necessary to keep in view the scheme of the object and purport of the statute
which takes him out of the said definition. Furthermore, the interpretation
section begins with the words "unless the context otherwise requires".

In Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi & Ors. reported in [2004] F
5 sec 409, it was noticed :

"A definition is not to be read in isolation. It must be read in
the context of the phrase which would define it. It should not be
vague or ambiguous. The definition of words must be given a
meaningful application; where .the context makes the definition G
given in the interpretation clause inapplicable, the same meaning
cannot be assigned.

ln State of Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Assn. one of us (V.N.
Khare, CJ.) stated that the definition given in the interpretation H
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A clause having regard to the contents would not be applicable. It was
stated : (SCC p.598, para 8)

"8. A bare perusal of Section 2 of the Act shows that
it starts with the words 'in this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires ... '. Let us find out whether in the
B
context of the provisions of Section 64 of the Act the
defined meaning of the expression 'management' can be
assigned to the word 'management' in Section 64 of the
Act. In para 3 of the Regulation, the Essentiality
Certificate is required to be given by the State Government
c and permission to establish a new medical college is to
be given by the State Government under Section 64 of
the Act. Ifwe give the defined meaning to the expression
'management' occurring in Section 64 of the Act, it
would mean the State Government is required to apply
to itself for grant of permission to set up a government
D
medical college through the University. Similarly it
would also mean the State Government applying to itself
for grant of Essentiality Certificate under para 3 of the
Regulation. We are afraid the defined meaning of the
expression 'management' cannot be assigned to the
E expression 'management' occurring in Section 64 of the
Act. In the present case, the context does not permit or
requires to apply the defined meaning to the word
'management' occurring in Section 64 of the Act."

F In Sri Chittaranjan Das v. Durgapore Project Limited & Ors., (1995)
2 CLJ 388, it was opined:

"In my opinion, it is not difficult to resolve the apparent conflict.
Both in the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946 as
also the certified Standing Order of the company the word "including
G an apprentice" occurs after the word 'person'. In that view of the
matter in place of the word 'person', the word 'apprentice' can be
substituted in a given situation but for the purpose of becoming a
workman either within the meaning of the 1946 Act or the standing
order framed thereunder, he is re9uired to fulfil the other conditions
laid down therein meaning thereby he is required to be employed
H
M.K. TRIPATHI v. SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER [SINHA, J.] 143

- in an industry to do the works enumerated in the said definition for
hire or reward,. whether the terms of employment be express or
A

implied."

The question as to who would answer the description of the term
'workman' fell for consideration before this Court in Dharangadhra Chemical B
Works Ltd v. State of Saurashtra and Others, AIR (1957) SC 264, wherein
this Court held :

"The essential condition of a person being a workman within the
terms of this definition is that he should be employed to do the work
in that industry, that there should be, in other words, an employment C
of his by the employer and that there should be the relationship
between the employer and him as between the employer and
employee or master and servant. Unless a person is thus employed
there can be no question of his being a workman within the
definition of the term as contained in the Act." D
Yet again in Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of
Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR (1958) SC 353, this Court .held :

"A little careful consideration will show, however, that the expression
'any person' occurring in the third part of the definition clause E
cannot mean anybody and everybody in this wide world. First of
all, the subject matter of dispute must relate to (i) employment or
non-employment or (ii) terms of employment or conditions of -
labour of any person; these necessarily import a limitation in the
sense that a person "in respect of whom the employer-employee F
relation never existed or can never possibly exist cannot be the
subject matter of a dispute between employers and workman.
Secondly, the definition clause must be read in the context of the
subject matter and scheme of the Act, and consistently with the
objects and other provisions of the Act. It is well settled that -
G
· "the words of a statute, when there is a doubt about their
meaning are to be understood in the sense in which they best
harmonise with the subject of the enactment and the object which
the legislature has in view. Their meaning is found not so much
in a strictly grammatical or etymological propriety of language, nor H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A even in its popular use, as in the subject or in the occasion on which
they are used, and the object to be attained."

(Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes, 9th Edition, p.55).

For the reasons aforementioned, we .are of the opinion that no case has
B been made out for interference with the impugned judgment. There is no
merit in these appeals which are dismissed accordingly. No costs.

v.s.s. Appeals dismissed.