EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Vs. TIDC INDIA, (UNIT OF TUBE INVESTMENTS INDIA LTD ), AMBATTUR, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs.G.Narmadha, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr.G.Anand, for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co., learned counsel for the respondent, through Video Conferencing due to COVID-19 pandemic.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Employees Insurance Court (Principal Labour Court), Chennai, in EIOP.No.87 of 2006, dated 20.04.2016, in and by which, it is held that an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act or under the Standing Orders of the Company is excluded from the definition of employee as per Section Section 2(f) of the Provident Fund Act and therefore, when an apprentice is completely excluded from the definition of an employee, the question of payment of contribution by the employer is far from acceptance and consequently, ESI court held that the wages paid to the apprentices do not warrant payment of contribution. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

(3.) After some arguments of Mrs.Narmadha, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.G.Anand, learned counsel for the respondent, has placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court in T.I.Ccycles of India, Ambattur, Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madras [CMA.No.1015 of 1991, dated 17.12.1999] and has also placed yet another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore, Vs. Central Arecanut and Coca Marketing and Processing Coop. Ltd.,Mangalore 2006 2 SCC 381.