Q:I was appointed as a trade apprentice for a year in a public sector company. I was engaged not only to do paper work connected to my job but was also forced to train all the sectional staff as per the instructions of the section head. Although the section head assured me verbally and on paper (duly signed in the monthly report) that I would be absorbed in service after completion of training, I am still jobless. The other apprentices were absorbed despite all of us having the same terms and conditions of the job. Can I refer my case to the Industrial Tribunal? If not, what other remedy do I have? Please advise.
Sushanta Dhar
Calcutta
A:Section 18 of the Apprentices Act 1961 provides that an ?apprentice shall be a trainee and not a worker and the provisions of any law with respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to such apprentice.? The courts have held that an apprentice, even if he discharges functions as a regular employee, cannot be deemed to be a ?workman? within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act.
As such, it appears that the Industrial Tribunal will have no jurisdiction in respect of the case. In general, an employer is not obliged to offer employment to an apprentice who has completed his period of apprenticeship training (Section 22 of the Act).
However, if the contract of apprenticeship contains that the apprentice shall after successful completion of his training, serve the employer, the latter will be bound to offer suitable employment to the apprentice. If there is such a condition in the contract of apprenticeship and the employer is not honouring the same, you should refer the dispute to the Apprenticeship Adviser (Section 20). If you are aggrieved by the decision of the Apprenticeship Adviser, you may prefer an appeal against the same to the Apprenticeship Council within 30 days from the date of communication to you of such decision.
Q:I am one of the two partners of a small firm engaged in the printing business. About a year ago, our firm had done some work for another partnership firm and raised a bill on that firm for about Rs 3 lakh as per the rates agreed upon. In spite of several reminders our firm hasn?t received payment against the bill. Recently the other firm has written a letter to us contending that we are not entitled to payment since our firm is not registered under the Indian Partnership Act. Is this stand tenable in law? What should be our next step?
Narayan Banik
Calcutta
A:The stand of the other firm seems to be dishonest and is definitely not tenable in law. Even if your firm is not registered under the Indian Partnership Act, that does not affect your entitlement to receive payment for the work done. However, you will be barred from filing a suit to enforce your claim, which is obviously based on contract (Section 69 of the Act).
You should immediately take steps for registering your firm under the said Act and after such registration if effected, file a money suit in the appropriate court for recovering your dues. Please keep in mind that you must file this suit within three years from the date when you became entitled to receive payment from the other firm. Otherwise your claim will become time-barred under the Limitation Act.
Send your letters to Inlaw at The Telegraph,
Jobs Desk, 6 Prafulla Sarkar Street,
Calcutta 700001;
or fax at 225 3142;
or send e-mails to jobs@abpmail.com.
