Apprenticeship Relationship: An Analysis Of ATS
CONTRACT OF APPRENTICESHIP- AN ANALYSIS
1. INTRODUCTION
The Apprentices Act, 1961 was enacted with the objective of regulating the programme of training of apprentices in the industry by utilizing the facilities available therein for imparting on-the-job training. The Act aims in regulating and controlling the training of apprentices and to supplement the availability of trained technical personnel for the industrial concerns. It provides for practical training to the graduate and diploma engineers. The Act sought to utilize the facilities available in industry for imparting practical training with a view to meeting the requirements of skilled manpower for the industry. The Act makes it obligatory for employers to engage apprentices in designated …show more content…
To improve the participation of industry and youth in ATS in a large number, Office of the Prime Minister’s National Council on Skill Development (PM’s NCSD), Central Apprenticeship Council (CAC) , National Commission on Labour (NCL), Indian Labour Conference (ILC), Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and National Skill Agency (NSDA) have given a slew of recommendations to make changes in the Apprentices Act, 1961 to make it more responsive to industry and …show more content…
An employer has the same meaning as that of the term ‘employer’ as used in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The term apprentice is defined in Section 2 (aa) of the Apprentices Act, 1961. An apprentice means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship. The term workman is defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. There were a number of cases where the Court had to settle questions pertaining to whether an apprentice can fall under the category of workman.
In the case of Ram Dular Paswan and others v. Presiding Officers, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Dhanbad and others it was held that apprentices and workmen were not the same. In this case, certain apprentices filed complaints under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that they were removed from service by their employer. The Labour Court rejected their complaints on the grounds that they were not workmen but merely apprentices to whom the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not
1. INTRODUCTION
The Apprentices Act, 1961 was enacted with the objective of regulating the programme of training of apprentices in the industry by utilizing the facilities available therein for imparting on-the-job training. The Act aims in regulating and controlling the training of apprentices and to supplement the availability of trained technical personnel for the industrial concerns. It provides for practical training to the graduate and diploma engineers. The Act sought to utilize the facilities available in industry for imparting practical training with a view to meeting the requirements of skilled manpower for the industry. The Act makes it obligatory for employers to engage apprentices in designated …show more content…
To improve the participation of industry and youth in ATS in a large number, Office of the Prime Minister’s National Council on Skill Development (PM’s NCSD), Central Apprenticeship Council (CAC) , National Commission on Labour (NCL), Indian Labour Conference (ILC), Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and National Skill Agency (NSDA) have given a slew of recommendations to make changes in the Apprentices Act, 1961 to make it more responsive to industry and …show more content…
An employer has the same meaning as that of the term ‘employer’ as used in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The term apprentice is defined in Section 2 (aa) of the Apprentices Act, 1961. An apprentice means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship. The term workman is defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. There were a number of cases where the Court had to settle questions pertaining to whether an apprentice can fall under the category of workman.
In the case of Ram Dular Paswan and others v. Presiding Officers, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Dhanbad and others it was held that apprentices and workmen were not the same. In this case, certain apprentices filed complaints under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that they were removed from service by their employer. The Labour Court rejected their complaints on the grounds that they were not workmen but merely apprentices to whom the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not