JUDGMENT
1. M/s. Arudyog are a small engineering workshop having their factory in plot No. 18/6 Hadaspar Industrial Estate, Poona-13. The Maharashtra Government had framed a scheme of imparting training to artisans from rural areas of Sangamner and at the request of the State Government, Arudyog accepted two government trainees under the scheme. The stipendiary was to be paid by the Government and Arudyog were to impart practical training to the two apprentices for a period of four months, make periodical report about their performance and disburse the stipend received from the Government to the apprentices.
2. M/s. Arudyog were employing only 18 persons in their factory and hence as matters stood, their unit did not come under the definition of Factory under section 2(12) of the Employee’s State Insurance Act (‘the Act’). However the Regional Director of Employees State Insurance Corporation, Bombay on a finding that the two apprentices were also working in the factory computed the total number of persons working therein as 20 and held that the unit is a factory within the meaning of section 2(12) of the Act. Consequential action followed and the Employers were asked to deposit Rs. 310.30 ps. as their contribution towards the fund which decision was successfully challenged by the employers before the Employees’ Insurance Court at Poona. Hence the appeal.
3. Various arguments were addressed at the Bar by the learned Counsel on either side, but I find that the appeal can be disposed of on the short ground that the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 will not apply to or in relation to the two apprentices in view of the clause (b) of Section 18 of the Apprentices Act, 1961.
4. As this point does not appear in the discussion in the judgment of the lower Court I had allowed parties to ascertain whether any notifications whereby the present scheme is exempted so far as the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961 is concerned as envisaged by sub-section (4) of section 1 of that Act. Mr. Jaykar says that he could not lay his hands or trace any notification by which it could be said that the Apprentices Act, 1961 does not apply to the scheme of imparting training of artisans from rural areas of Sangamner. However, Counsel argues that the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 could not be called a law with respect to labour as contemplated by clause (b) of section 18 of the Apprentices Act, 1961, in as much as including the two apprentices while computing the number of persons working in the factory for the purposes of sub-section (12) of section 2 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act cannot be called applying a law with respect to labour in relation to such apprentices.
5. I am afraid the argument is ingenious as it may be, is not the one by which I find myself persuaded because the expression laws with respect to labour is not a term of art but a compendious portmanteau bringing within its fold the entire gamut of social welfare legislation intended to safeguard the interests of labour and ensure discipline and safety in the working of the factories. The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 enjoins upon the employers to make certain contributions to the fund which would no doubt cast an economic burden which a small concern may not be able to bear. To ensure that only such establishments as have a large complement of men are required contribute to the fund, the definition of the term factory was made dependent on its employing more than twenty persons. The apprentices under any scheme as the name suggests come to learn the tricks of the trade and may not count much so far as the output of the factory is concerned. With that end in view parliament in its wisdom decided to exempt the apprentices scheme from the operation of laws relating to labour unless the State Government thought otherwise. In this view of the matter I find that the Employees’ State Insurance Court was right in giving declaration as respect the apprentices and ordering refund of sum of Rs. 310.30 ps. though for different reasons. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.