New Delhi: A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking reconsideration of its ruling that a person appointed apprentice in an industrial establishment is not a workman and cannot claim the right of regularisation.

The court in November last held that while an apprentice was also treated as a workman for purposes of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act, 1947, by virtue of Section 18 of the Apprentices Act, 1961, it was categorically provided that apprentices were not workers and the provisions of any labour law would not apply to them.

V. Lakshminarayanan raised an industrial tribute as the National Small Industries Corporation, which appointed him apprentice, did not regularise his services.

A labour court directed that his services be regularised and the Madras High Court confirmed this order. But the apex court rejected his appeal.

In the apex court, Mr. Lakshminarayanan said if the judgment was not reviewed, a workman would be left protectionless and could be got rid off anytime by being labelled as an apprentice even though he was employed for a number of years to do regular work under various designations.

The petitioner said: "There is no reference in the judgment to the definition of `Designated Trade' in the Apprentice Act."

Verdict

The verdict "itself appears to proceed on the basis that any person who is termed apprentice by the employer would be covered by the Apprentice Act, which will have far-reaching consequences."

The petitioner said the labour court categorically established that he had been doing routine work and even after he was appointed apprentice, he continued to do the same work, and therefore he was a workman under Section 2 (s) of the ID Act. The High Court confirmed this finding.

He said the decision on the review petition would be of vital importance because any employer, by just giving an appointment order stating that one was an apprentice, could take away a workman from the protection of the ID Act, even though such an apprentice was not employed in any designated trade under the Apprentices Act.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu