Skip to content


Options Dock ▼

Judgment Search Results Home > Search Phrase: apprentices act Page 1 of about 66,706 results (0.231 seconds)

Oct 01 2004 (SC)

U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Shri Shiv Mohan Singh and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2004SC5009; JT2004(8)SC272; 2004(3)KLT686(SC); (2005)ILLJ117SC; 2004(8)SCALE475; (2004)8SCC402; (2005)1UPLBEC175

..... 8386/2003. 82. the case of the respondent manoj kumar shukla is that he was appointed on the post of store keeper as an apprentice under the apprentices act, 1961 with effect from 10.10.1988. his services were terminated on 9.10.1989. it is alleged that no examination of national ..... by the labour court holding that since the contract of apprenticeship was entered in to between the parties and the incumbent was appointed as an apprentice under the apprentices act, 1961 and his contract was not sent for registration to the apprenticeship adviser that will not change the character of the incumbent. hence, ..... civil and he further admitted that no contract was registered. from the fact that the incumbent himself had admitted that he was undergoing training as apprentice under the apprentices act, 1961, therefore, after expiry of the period of one year, he cannot claim himself to be workman and more so, when his services ..... dispute has been raised in 1997. more so in view of the legal position as mentioned above that the incumbent having been appointed as apprentice under the apprentices act, cannot be treated as a workman and consequently the award given by the labour court on 9.11.1998 and affirmed by the ..... employer in their affidavit in opposition before the labour court. however, in view of the fact that the incumbent was appointed as an apprentice under the apprentices act, 1961 in a designated trade of boiler attendant and that he is not a workman and he is not entitled to the benefit of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 1985 (HC)

Naresh Chander and ors. Vs. Hindustan Insectisides Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : [1985(51)FLR93]; ILR1988Delhi306

..... the matters of employment. the constitution and the well-established principles of administrative law cast this duty on the state and all instrumentalities of state. as trained apprentices under the apprentices act the petitioners have legitimate expectation and interest to seek employment and a legal remedy against an instrumentality of a state. there is a corresponding duty cast on ..... directing the respondent-company to appoint in them to the said grade iii posts in the respondent-company. the original apprentices act, namely, act xix of 1850 was passed for providing apprenticeship training to orphans and poor children. the act was further amended in 1973 to extend the apprenticeship training facilities to graduate engineers and diploma-holders. the training programmes ..... submission of the counsel for the respondents is that the said recruitment rules apply only to the apprentices selected by the company on its own and not to the apprentices trained under the apprentices act. our attention was drawn to the words 'existing apprentices' for this interpretation by the learned counsel for the company. he had submitted that the company ..... all instrumentalities of the state not to act arbitrarily and in violation of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. the respondent-company has admitted that none of the apprentices trained under the apprentices act have been offered employment by the company so far. there is thus breach of constitutional .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2004 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Ra ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2004)2MLJ260

..... and 3).7. the tribunal, on consideration of the materials on record, came to hold that ' . . . the applicants (present respondents 2 and 3) were selected for training as apprentices under the apprentices act, 1961 in central workshop, southern railway and allotted to madurai division for training, as per the terms of workshop personnel officer/goc, ponmalai, letter dated 23.4.1991. they ..... 2. the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are required to be noticed in some detail. the present respondents 2 and 3 were selected for training as apprentices under the apprentices act, 1961 and under letter dated 23.4.1991, they were directed to undergo shed floor training in the open line establishment workshops for a period of 3 years. ..... conduct evinced by both the parties, even though no formal contract in the prescribed proforma had been signed. section 4 deals with contract of apprenticeship. section 4(5) of the apprentices act is to the following effect:-' 4. contract of apprenticeship- (1) to (4) . . .(5) the apprenticeship adviser shall not register a contract of apprenticeship unless he is satisfied that ..... by the learned counsel for the railways.'the tribunal further observed that it cannot also give a declaration that the applicants were deemed to have completed the training under the apprentices act. after coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the tribunal observed :'25. we have already stated that because of the negligence by the railways, the applicants have not entered into .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2000 (HC)

Premier Polytronics Ltd. Vs. Assistant Regional Director, Employees' S ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2001(90)FLR10]; (2001)ILLJ1293Mad

..... specifically found that they have the major role in the production of the materials. the court below has also found that they are not approved apprentices under the provisions of the apprentices act, 1961, and no standing orders had also been filed in evidence to show that they are governed by any specific standing orders of scheme for ..... the supreme court held that having regard to the definition of 'employee', section 2(9) of the employees' state insurance act in contrast with the definition of 'apprentice' under section 2(a) of the apprentices act, it was held that the apprentices were specifically excluded from the definition of an employee. therefore, according to learned counsel, there was no scope to consider the ..... effect from august 1, 1988, by virtue of the amendment, the definition of an 'employee' would include any person who was engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice under the apprentices act, 1961, or under the standing orders of establishment.10. it is not disputed that the question whether an individual designated as ..... 1983, and the employer wasadvised to comply with the provisions of theemployees' state insurance act (hereinaftercalled 'the act'). but even after the inspectionon february 27, 1984, and the subsequentclarification, the employees designated asapprentices who are not apprentices governedunder the apprentices act, 1961, were notcovered under the act, and there was no properresponse from the employer. the employer'srepresentative who called on .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 1999 (HC)

Babulal S/O. Heera Lal Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : (1999)IILLJ1076Raj

..... are the letters issued by the divisional mechanical engineer, jodhpur to the petitioners informing that they had been selected by the rajasthan state road transport corporation under the apprentices act programme and that the selection had been made subject to certain conditions. one of the conditions was that there was 'no job guarantee'. it is not disputed ..... for a period of one year. in the said contract it is clearly stated that the petitioners and their sureties solemnly declare that they have read the apprentices act, 1961 and the apprentices training rules, 1962 regarding contract of apprenticeship training including obligations and agree to abide by all the provisions made thereunder. it is pertinent to mention here ..... to r-9 are the certificates of registration issued from the office of the joint director of technical education and joint state apprentice advisor, rajasthan registered under the apprentice act. these certificates also show that the petitioners were only apprentices and period of apprenticeship training was for one year and that period was completed on january 9, 1992, january 28, ..... 's services without complying with the provisions of section 25-f of the industrial disputes act. the petitioner did not acquire the status of a workman. he continued to be an apprentice. the word 'apprentice' has been defined under section 2(aa) of the apprentices act. 'apprentice' means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 08 1975 (SC)

The Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Anr. Vs. the Tata Engin ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1976SC66; (1976)ILLJ81SC; (1975)2SCC835; 1975(7)LC879(SC)

..... in the agreement. 7. now coming to the legislative history of our country on the subject, it is interesting to note that more than hundred years back we had the apprentices act, 1850 and its preamble says 'for better enabling children, and especially orphans and poor children brought up by public charity, to learn trades, crafts and employments, by which, when ..... and not a worker.13. the concept of apprenticeship is, therefore, fairly known and has now been clearly recognised in the apprentices act. apart from that, as we have noticed earlier, the terms and conditions under which these apprentices and engaged do not give any scope for holding that they are employed in the work of the company or in connection with ..... available to the regular employees. we are, therefore, unable to hold that the apprentice is an employee within the meaning of section 2(9) of the act. 12. incidentally to my note that section 18 of the apprentices act, 1961, provides that-save as otherwise provided in this act, every apprentice under going apprenticeship training in a designated trade in an establishment shall be a ..... or trade was the essence of the said legislation. this act was repealed by section 38 of the apprentices act, 1951. the object of 1961 act is to provide for the regulation and control of training of apprentices in trades and for matters connected therewith. by the definition clause under this act, namely, section 2(a) 'apprentice' means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 29 2000 (HC)

Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Ballkhan D. Joya

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : [2000(87)FLR933]; (2000)2GLR1522; (2000)IILLJ1116Guj

..... the foundation of the relationship between the parties. in my view, whether the trainee is a mere trainee under the personal contract (de hors the apprentices act), or is an apprentice within the meaning of the said act, makes no difference. so long as a trainee is engaged by the employer for the purpose of imparting training, this dominant purpose and object, ..... this entire evidence is, in my view, that during the period when the respondent was engaged by the petitioner, he was engaged as an apprentice, and that status of the respondent as an apprentice under the apprentices act, 1961 subsequently came to be frustrated by refusal of registration of the contract. as aforesaid, even the oral evidence of the respondent himself is ..... by any dispute that the respondent was certainly a trainee, and was undergoing training in the trade of lineman, whether he was ultimately qualified to be called an apprentice within the meaning of the apprentices act, 1961 or not. in other words, during the tenure of his service the respondent was certainly an intended 'trainee', but not an intended 'worker' or intended ..... the relationship between the parties, which relationship both the parties had, during the tenure of this relationship, accepted as an apprentice under the said act. 14. it is pertinent to note that under section 18 of the apprentices act, 1961 every apprentice undergoing apprentice training shall be trainee and not a worker, and the provisions of any law with respect to labour shall not be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 1990 (HC)

Ub Mec Batteries Ltd. Vs. State Apprenticeship Advisor

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1991KAR188

..... the above petitioners being aggrieved by the direction given by the respondent on the interpretation of section 9(8)(a)(i) of the apprentices act 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), have filed the above writ petitions for issue of certiorari to quash the orders of the respondent.2. since there is a common ..... . 709/74 of the hon'ble high court of madras wherein his lordship was asked to interpret section 9(4) of the act for implementing the apprentices act. the other mode is the plain reading of the provision as it stood in the statute and interpreted thereafter.11. under section 9( ..... glue factory and sulphuric acid plant and shaw wallace industries, kaduvetty as one unit for purpose of imparting training to the apprentices. in that context section 9(4) of the act came up before the court for interpretation as to whether all the three units will be brought under one employer for ..... directors. location of the petitioner's working establishment are also in two different places. though for the purpose of the act, to impart apprentice training, few companies may be united together, but for the purpose of reimbursement, it is exclusively governed under section 9(8)(a) of ..... separate building where the employer employs in his establishment five hundred or more workers. under section 8 of the act, the authority will determine for each designated trade the ratio of trade apprentices to workers other than unskilled workers in that trade.12. in the madras case cited above, the director .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2002 (HC)

U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Iii a ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (2003)IIILLJ88All

..... regular charge of boiler operator and he was working in all the three shifts including the night shift; and also that he was not an 'apprentice' as defined in the apprentices act or the u.p. industrial disputes act.10. the labour court has given a categorical finding of fact that the petitioner did not file any contract of apprenticeship nor was any such ..... is no dispute about this position. but in the present case, the petitioner has been unable to establish that the respondent no. 2 was an apprentice as defined under the apprentices act, 1961 or the u. p. industrial disputes act, 1947. as such the ratio of such decisions would not apply to the present case.12. learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon ..... that since the petitioner did not file any 'contract of apprenticeship' nor gave any proof of its registration as required under the apprentices act; as such the respondent no. 2 could not be treated as an 'apprentice' as defined in the apprentices act, 1961. further, the labour court also held that the petitioner failed to show any scheme approved by the state government under which ..... , independent charge of boiler operator was also handed over to him. it had been categorically stated that he was not an 'apprentice' as defined either under section 2(aa) of the apprentices act or section 2(a) of the u.p. industrial disputes act, 1947. he claimed to be covered by the definition of 'workman' under section 2(z) of the u.p. industrial .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 2008 (HC)

Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR873

..... conflict between the two laws can be resolved by applying the principle of harmonious construction. the apprentices act is not an exhaustive act to cover all types of apprentices because in view of the definition of term 'apprentice' as contained in section 2(aa) of the apprentices act, it is applicable only to persons who are undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of the contract of ..... the provisions of section 2(s) of the industrial disputes act and section 18 of the apprentices act inasmuch as section 2(s) postulates that an apprentice is a workman to whom the provisions of industrial disputes act would be applicable whereas section 18 of the apprentices act declares that an apprentice governed by the apprentices act is not to be treated as a workman and the ..... , which is prior and general law. it was contended that in the said case, the controversy was that under the apprentices act, 1961, an apprentice was not a workman whereas under the industrial disputes act, 1947, an apprentice is a workman. this conflict was resolved by the apex court by confirming the decision of the rajasthan high court where it has been ..... that for the purpose of section 2(s) of the industrial disputes act, a person who is designated as apprentice but is not governed by the apprentices act would be a workman governed by the provisions of the industrial disputes act. but an apprentice who is governed by the provisions of the apprentices act would not be a workman under section 2(s) of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //