https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273418 An apprentice governed by the Apprentices Act, 1961 was held not to become a workman merely because certified standing orders used inclusive language, since the special statutory scheme treats an apprentice as a trainee and not an employee for hire or reward. The Court also upheld the employer's insistence on documentary proof of age at entry under the standing order, and refused to treat the apprenticeship record of birth as conclusive where later engagement was fresh, supporting records were withheld, and the age was disputed. A contested date of birth could not be conclusively determined in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, so relief was refused. en-us Wed, 21 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Apr 2023 13:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273418 An apprentice governed by the Apprentices Act, 1961 was held not to become a workman merely because certified standing orders used inclusive language, since the special statutory scheme treats an apprentice as a trainee and not an employee for hire or reward. The Court also upheld the employer's insistence on documentary proof of age at entry under the standing order, and refused to treat the apprenticeship record of birth as conclusive where later engagement was fresh, supporting records were withheld, and the age was disputed. A contested date of birth could not be conclusively determined in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, so relief was refused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 21 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273418