Supreme Court rejects apprentice's claim

The Supreme Court held last week in the judgment, UP State Electricity Board vs Shri Shiv Mohan, that under the Apprentices Act, the only obligation of the employer was to impart them training and pay stipend.

Beyond that, there was no obligation to accept them as his employees and give them the status as workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act.

"The position of the apprentice remains as an apprentice/trainee and during the period of training they will not be treated as workmen," the judgment said. The Supreme Court overruled the contrary view held by the Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh high courts.

Appeal allowed in BPCL eviction case

The Supreme Court last week allowed the appeal of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) against the eviction of its premises in Chennai and held that the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act 1976 was not directly applicable in such cases.

Whether the take-over legislation had relevance in a given case should be decided by an appropriate court and not the high court in a writ petition.

In this case, the landlord tried to evict the company through a writ petition in the high court, citing two Supreme Court judgments relating to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL) which had dealt with the effect of acquisition of a foreign company by the government.

The division bench of the high court accepted the argument and ordered the eviction. However, the Supreme Court overruled the Madras high court judgment.

National Insurance wins accident appeal

National Insurance Company Ltd (NICL) has won its appeal in the Supreme Court in a motor vehicle accident case involving a tractor and a bus. An agriculturist travelling in his tractor was killed. His dependents moved the tribunal and got compensation. The Andhra Pradesh high court upheld the award.

However, the Supreme Court overruled both of them. It explained that a tractor could not be called a 'goods carriage' according to the definition given in the Motor Vehicles Act. A tractor is used for agricultural purposes. In this case, the agriculturist was taking his produce to the market as a businessman.

Therefore the tractor and trailer were not being used for agricultural purposes but for business activities. Therefore, under the terms of insurance and the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation, the Supreme Court said.

Judgment favours electricity board

The Supreme Court has overruled the Madhya Pradesh high court which had directed the 'reinstatement' with 50 per cent backwages of workers who were engaged in digging pits for electricity projects of the state electricity board for several years.

The industrial court and the high court drew adverse inferences against the board as it had not produced certain muster rolls regarding the engagement of workers in its projects in various parts of the state.

The Supreme Court ruled that non-production of the muster rolls could not automatically lead to an adverse inference against the electricity board.

Moreover, the employment of the workers was on a 'discontinuous and intermittent basis'. The job of this nature may be done by the board continuously in different parts of the state, but that does not deviate from the fact that it was a 'project' and not a continuous job. The Supreme Court thus allowed the appeal of the electricity board.