ESI contribution - Trainees -
S. Krishnamoorthy
(Querist) 13 March 2008
This query is : Resolved
Can any one let me know whether there are any legal verdicts to treat "trainees" as "employees" within the meaning of ESI Act?
The Supreme Court of India has held that under the model standing orders, apprentices are "trainees" and they are not "employees".
S. Krishnamoorthy
Manish Singh
(Expert) 13 March 2008
I hope this case could be a bit useful for your reference.
2006 SCCL.COM 49(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 978 of 2000)
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore Appellant Vs. M/s. Central Aercanut & Coca Marketing and Processing Co-op. Ltd., Mangalore Respondent, decided on 1/30/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran.
Subject Index: Employee Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1951 -- Sections 2(f) and 7-A -- Standing Orders Act -- Section 12-A -- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946 -- S.O.2, clause (g) -- Apprentices Act -- Section 2(aa) -- Employee -- trainee -- paid stipend during training -- no right to employment or obligation to accept employment -- trainees 'apprentices' engaged under 'Standing Orders' -- excluded from definition of employee -- employer not liable to pay provident fund -- appeals dismissed.
S. Krishnamoorthy
(Querist) 14 March 2008
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your message. I have already quoted this judgement in my reply to ESIC. In addition, there is also another decision of the Supreme Court - 1976-I LLJ - p.86-ESIC-v- Telco. & another wherein it was held that an apprentice is not an employee.
I have also quoted this in support of my contention. Yet, the ESIC does not relent.
I will also be grateful the practice obtaining in the BPOs/ITES companies in other Regions of ESIC.
S. Krishnamoorthy
Manish Singh
(Expert) 14 March 2008
Dear Mr. Krishnamurthy,]
The training period can not be for than continuous 6 months in this context.
And if the employee has worked for 240 days or more, in a year, he will be trated as a permanent employee and would come under the protection of labour laws.
S. Krishnamoorthy
(Querist) 04 April 2008
Dear Mr. Manish
Your reply of 4/3/2008 has not been displayed.
S. Krishnamoorthy
