PREMIER POLYTRONICS LTD Vs. ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the District Judge, Coimbatore, in E.S.I.O.P. No. 113 of 1986. The petitioner/ company before the Employees' Insurance Court is the appellant in the above appeal.

(2.) A notice under Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, dated May 6, 1986, was directed against the appellant herein calling upon the company to pay a specific amount with interest at 6 per cent for each day of further default from the date of the order. It was stated in the notice that subsequent to the earlier notice to show cause and inspection of the factory on July 4, 1983, the factory was treated as covered with effect from February 16, 1983, and the employer was advised to comply with the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter called "the Act"). But even after the inspection on February 27, 1984, and the subsequent clarification, the employees designated as apprentices who are not apprentices governed under the Apprentices Act, 1961, were not covered under the Act, and there was no proper response from the employer. The employer's representative who called on the Assistant Regional Director, had agreed to pay the contribution. But this was not complied with and accordingly the Inspector had visited the factory on February 14, 1985, and it was found that the employees who were designated as apprentices were actually not trainees or apprentices. Hence, the order under Section 45-A of the Act. Prior to the passing of the order, in response to the show cause, the employer had replied that they were not liable to pay contribution with reference to the apprentices.

(3.) In the reply by the employer, it was contended that they have a full-fledged scheme of apprenticeship in their factory with duly certified standing orders and regular classes were also conducted one day in a week for all the apprentices and for the rest of the days they were being given the job training. The progress of their learning of the work and efficiency was also periodically assessed by the supervisors. It was further contended that they are manufacturing highly sophisticated electronic equipment and the said persons are suitably trained before they are actually employed. Therefore, according to the employer, the concerned employees were apprentices who do not come under the purview of the Act.