Case Law Details
Chairman-Cum-Managing Vs Controlling Authority (Orissa High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether the employee joined as a trainee is eligible for gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972?
High Court states that definition of the term ’employee’ in Section 2(e) excludes an employee from its scope. The term ‘apprentice’ has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Apprentices Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Apprentices Act’) in the following words, ‘Apprentice’ means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated trade in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship.” A trainee employed under a contract of employment is not an apprentice, under the Apprentices Act, unless he is undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated trade in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship. trainee outside the Apprentices Act is to be distinguished from an apprentice undergoing training in a designated trade in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship. The former is covered by the definition of the term “employee” while the latter is excluded from the definition. The heart of the matter in apprenticeship is, therefore, the dominant object and intent to impart on the part of the employer and to accept on the part of the person learning under certain agreed terms. Hence, the claimant-employee is entitled to gratuity in view of the analysis made above.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
