LORD KRISHNA BANK LTD Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Are the trainees undergoing training in the Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. to be enrolled as members of the provident fund established under the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme framed under S.5 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter, the Act), is the question that falls for decision in this case.

(2.) On joining training, a trainee is entitled to receive only a stipend. Ordinarily, the period of training is of six months duration. At any time during the period of training the Bank can terminate the training without any prior notice and without assigning any reason therefor. The period of training can likewise be extended. During the period of training, a trainee is expected to get a thorough knowledge of the manual of instructions of the Bank, circulars, rules of business, policies and procedures, system of working etc. of the Bank. He should thus be able to discharge the duties and responsibilities expected of him satisfactorily. He should also show his capacity in mobilising deposits by attaining the deposit targets. Unless the trainee attains the required standard of proficiency, there is no assurance that he would be appointed to the service of the Bank. On his being taken as a trainee of the Bank, he shall have to resign from the job, if any, he is holding and shall also have to relinquish agency, if any, he holds. However, there is no commitment and guarantee that a trainee will be absorbed in the service of the Bank even on satisfactory completion of the training. On such completion of training he has to appear for such tests and / or interviews prescribed by the Bank from time to time for considering his eligibility for appointment as a probationary hand for a period of one year. These are the material terms of the contract of appointment as a trainee.

(3.) The above mentioned terms of the contract of appointment of a trainee entered into between the Bank and a prospective trainee as evidenced in this case by Exts. P1 and P7 leave no room for doubt that the trainee is not a member of the service of the Bank, even as a probationer. He is, by the training undergone by him, expected to learn and equip himself with everything needed for getting absorbed into the service of the Bank, or in other words, and to be more precise, to make himself eligible for absorption as a probationer in the Bank's service. In legal terminology the trainee is therefore an 'apprentice', and Exts. P1 and P7 constitute a contract of apprenticeship. On this there is no dispute between the learned counsel on either side. The point for decision formulated in the beginning of this judgment can therefore be recast as: 'is an apprentice to be enrolled as a member of the Fund'.