https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179059 A person engaged as an apprentice under a corporation's training scheme was not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act because the appointment letter, stipend arrangement and discharge terms showed a training relationship, and no evidence proved that he actually performed skilled, unskilled, manual, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work. The Court applied the settled test that designation is irrelevant unless the person positively satisfies the statutory definition of workman, and mere absence of managerial or supervisory duties is insufficient. The Apprentices Act reinforced that apprentices are trainees, not workers, unless the statutory and factual foundation is established. On that basis, the termination could not be challenged as retrenchment. en-us Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179059 A person engaged as an apprentice under a corporation's training scheme was not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act because the appointment letter, stipend arrangement and discharge terms showed a training relationship, and no evidence proved that he actually performed skilled, unskilled, manual, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work. The Court applied the settled test that designation is irrelevant unless the person positively satisfies the statutory definition of workman, and mere absence of managerial or supervisory duties is insufficient. The Apprentices Act reinforced that apprentices are trainees, not workers, unless the statutory and factual foundation is established. On that basis, the termination could not be challenged as retrenchment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179059