If a person is a workman for purposes of a standing order framed under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946, then he would also deem to be a workman for purposes of Industrial Disputes Act, Madras High Court has held.

If one looked into definition of term ‘workman' u/s 2(s) of ID Act, then the term included an ‘apprentice'. Hence, so long as a person was not an ‘apprentice' under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961, he would be a ‘workman' for the purpose of Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, Mr Justice K. Chandru ruled while allowing writ petitions by KT Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd, Salem, challenging order dated June 8, 2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Salem (Authority under Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act) (R-1), allowing appeals filed by third respondents (A.A. Kumar and R. Kesavan – unskilled apprentices in the Company).

The petitioner-company contended that the respondents were not workmen under the Subsistence Allowance Act, and hence they were not eligible for subsistence allowance.

The judge observed that the respondents had merely taken a technical stand that they had not received termination orders of petitioner. This court was not inclined to accept the said explanation. The R-1 had committed error in rendering a different finding and by ordering subsistence allowance to the respondents.

Hence, writ petitions stood allowed, the judge held. Impugned orders of the R-1 stood set aside.

Related Topics