INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD Vs. JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Legal issue involved in this Writ Petition is as to whether a person undergoing training after appointment under an employer will fall within the excluded category under S. 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner company is challenging Ext. P4 order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter for short 'the Act'). It is held in Ext. P4 that the 1st respondent is entitled for payment of gratuity during the period when he had undergone training. In an appeal filed by the petitioner company the said order was confirmed through Ext. P6. It is challenging Exts. P4 and P6 this Writ Petition is filed. The 1st respondent is a person having 22 years service in CRPF. He applied for the post of "Guard (Trainee)" set apart for Scheduled Tribe candidates, based on notification published inviting applications. He was selected and appointed as "Guard (Trainee)" with effect from 1.7.1997. On completion of 2 years training period he was appointed as "Guard (Watch & Ward)", with effect from 1.7.1999. He continued in the service without any break and retired on 3.3.2010, after rendering 12 years and 9 months service. The petitioner company paid gratuity counting his service only from 1.7.1999. Against denial of gratuity for the period from 1.7.1997 to 30.6.1999, the 1st respondent filed claim under S. 7(4)(b) of the Act, before the Controlling Authority. On the issue as to whether the period of training from 1.7.1997 to 30.6.1999 is to be counted for payment of gratuity, the Controlling Authority held that, "only apprentice has been kept out of the purview of the Act and 'trainee' being different from 'apprentice' will be included in the definition of employee contemplated under S. 2(e)". The controlling authority had relied on the decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central Hyderabad) & Ors., 2000 87 FLR 522. It is held therein that temporary/trainee period will also be eligible for payment of gratuity, provided it is continuous in nature and not covered under the Apprentices Act, 1961. On facts the controlling authority found that the 1st respondent was working during the disputed period without any interruption. It was also noticed that the 1st respondent is an Ex-CRPF personnel with rich experience of 22 years well acquainted with the job of Watch & Ward.

(2.) The Appellate Authority also found that, a trainee employee under a contract of employment is not an 'apprentice' under the Apprentice Act. Since S. 2(e) of the Act excludes only apprentice and not trainee, there is no exclusion of trainee from the purview of Payment of Gratuity Act. The Appellate Authority had placed heavy reliance on the decision in Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd., 1976 AIR(SC) 66)