CAN WE CONSIDER AN APPRENTICE IS A WORKMAN ACCORDING TO ID ACT SECDTION 2S.? AS WE KNOW SECTION 2S SAYS -“Workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-.......... AND NOW IF WE SEE THE APPRENTICE ACT WE CAN SEE An apprentice is not a workman during apprentice training. [section 18]. Provisions of labour law like Bonus, PF, ESI Act, gratuity, Industrial Disputes Act etc. are not applicable to him. . However, provisions of Factories Act regarding health, safety and welfare will apply to him. Apprentice is also entitled to get compensation from employer for employment injury. [section 16].CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHY IS THAT , IF THERE WORK IS SAME AND THEY DO SAME LIKE A REGULAR WORKER WHY THEY CANT GATE THE SAME FACILITY . AS I THINK IT WILL BE USEFULL TO A INDUSTRY TO APPOINT APPRENTICE / TRAINEE RATHER THAN TO APPOINT A WORKMAN




Apprentices Acts of 1961

18.  Apprentices and trainees are not worker



Save as otherwise provided in this Act, - (a) every apprentice undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated trade in an establishment shall be a trainee and not a worker; and


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


Exclusion from definition of workman


In order to be an apprentice under the Act and to be excluded from the definition of ‘workmen', person should be appointed as an apprentice in a ‘designated trade'; Ghisilal v. State Industrial Courts , 2005 LLR 871.

An apprentice not to be deemed as workman


An apprentice under the Act can not be deemed to be a workman merely by discharging functions as a regular employee; Tannery & Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. v. Labour Court, Kanpur , (1994) II LLJ 1186 (All)







Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


  Search Forum



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query
CrPC Course!     |    x