INTRODUCTION

The enforceability of an agreement is defined under Section 2(b) of the Indian

Contract Act 1872. The interpretation clause carries a pre condition that the parties to
the contract must be competent to contract as defined by Section 10 of the act and the
competence to contract is defined in Section 11 which states that “every person is
competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to law to which he is
subject, and who is of sound mind, and is not disqualified from contracting by any
law to which he is a subject.” This section thus declares that the following people are
incompetent to contract: minors, persons of unsound mind and persons disqualified
by law to which they are subject.1 Minor can be defined as a person who is under the
age of eighteen years of age and the law dealing with minors is based on two
principles:

1. The law must protect the minor against his own inexperience.
2. The law should not cause unnecessary hardship to adults who deal fairly with
the minors.2
The law declared by the Privy Council in the Mohori Bibi case3 that a minor’s
agreement is “absolutely void” has been generally followed, but it has been
growingly “confined to cases where a minor is charged with obligations and the other
contracting party seeks to enforce those obligations against the minor.”4 A minor can
be a beneficiary or a promisee. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 allows a minor to
derive benefit under a contract even if he cannot enter into one. In the eyes of the law,
a minor is not treated as incapable of accepting benefits. A promissory note in favour
of a minor can also be enforced by the minor.5 As long as the minor has paid the full
consideration and nothing more is required to be done by him under the contract or he
is required to bear no obligation, he can obtain the benefit stipulated.6

Accordingly, a minor is allowd to enforce a contract which is of some benefit to him

and under which he is required to bear no obligation. In the case of Srikakulam
Subrahmanyam v. Kurra Shubha Rao7 it was observed that in order to pay off his
promissory note and mortgage debt of his father, the minor son and his mother sold

1Ashok Kumar J. Pandya v. Suyog Coop Housing Society Ltd, AIR 2003 Guj 118 (NOC): 2002
AIHC 3401, a housing society agreed to sell land before it became a legal person by registration,
not enforceable.
2Singh, Avtar, Contract &Specific Relief, 10th Edition. Eastern Book Company Page 153.

3(1903) 30 IA 114: (1903) AC 6: 1903 ILR 30 Cal 539 (PC)

4Raghava Chariar v Srinivasa, (1916) 40 Mad 308, per SESHGIRI AYYAR J at page
311. Satyadeva Narayana v Tribeni Prasad, AIR 1936 Pat 153, minor a mortagagee.
5Sharfath Ali v. Noor Mahmomed AIR (1924) Rang 136

6Singh, Avtar, Contract &Specific Relief, 10th Edition. Eastern Book Company Page 155.

7ILR 1949 Mad 141 PC

the piece of the land to the holders of the promissory note. Afterwards the minor filed
to recover the property back. It was found that the sale was made for the benefit of
the minor and his mother (guardian) had the capacity to contract on his behalf and
hence the sale of the land was held to be valid. In the case of Thakar Das v. Mt Putli8
it was held that a minor is capable for purchasing immovable property and he may
sue to recover the possesion of the property purchased upon tender of the purchase
money.

A lease however is not like other transfers of property and a lease to a minor has
been held to be void.9 All these cases proceed on the principal that the minor has
already given the full consideration to be supplied by him and there is nothing that
remains to be done by him under the contract.10 Where a minor has given
consideration under a contract, but the consideration given to him has failed, he may
have restitution.11 Thus, where a minor bought a zamindari property on payment of
money, but he was ousted on a suit by a third party, it was held “that the minor was at
any rate entitled to recover from the vendor the sum which he had paid at the time of
the purchase of the property.”12

8AIR 1924 Lah 611

9Jaykant v. Durgashankar, AIR 1970 Guj 106. Quoted from Ponnuswami and Puri, CASES
AND MATERIALS ON CONTRACTS, p. 313 (1974).

10 Singh, Avtar, Contract &Specific Relief, 10th Edition. Eastern Book Company Page 164-
165.

11 Singh, Avtar, Contract &Specific Relief, 10th Edition. Eastern Book Company Page 165.

12 Walidad Khan v. Janak Singh, AIR 1935 All 370

CONTRACT

Section 2 (h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines a contract as: ‘An agreement
enforceable by law is a contract.’ Contract is a combination of agreement and
enforceability. Creation of obligation on the part of the parties to an agreement to
perform their liabilities gives the cause of enforceability of an agreement. The nature
of agreement is then changed into a contract.

MINOR

According to Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, a minor is one who has not
th
completed his 18 year of age. So a person becomes a major after the completion of
18 years of life. To this rule there are two exceptions:

• (i) When a guardian of the minor’s person or property is appointed by a court

of law;

• (ii) When a minor’s property is taken over by the court of wards for
management.

st
In either of these two cases minority continues up to the completion of the 21 year.
In India Section 11 expressly provides that the age of majority of a person is to be
determined according to the law to which he is subject. The Courts of Law used to
decide the competency of contract by the law of domicile and not by the law of the
place where the contract is entered into. But the later trend of law for determining the
age of majority is:

• (a) In the case of contracts relating to ordinary mercantile transactions, the age
of majority is to be determined by the law of the place where the contract is
made;
 • (b) In the case of contracts relating to land, the age of majority is to be
determined by the law of the place where the land is situated.

LAWS REGARDING MINOR’S CONTRACT

1. A contract by a minor is absolutely void: A contract by a minor is

absolutely void and inoperative. Further where a minor is charged with obligations
and the other contracting party seeks to enforce those obligations against minor, the
contract is deemed as void ab initio. A minor’s contract being absolutely void, neither
he nor the other party acquires any rights or incurs any liability under the contract. So
a minor is neither liable to perform what he has promised to do under a contract, nor
is he liable to repay money that he has received under it. The principle behind this
ruling is, a minor is incapable of judging what is good for him. A minor, however, can
derive benefits under the Act. That means, a minor can be a beneficiary i.e. a payee,
an endorsee or a promise under the Act.

2. A minor cannot be compelled to compensate for or refund any benefit

which he has received under a void contract: Section 64 and 65 of
the Contract Act, which deal with restitution, apply only to contracts between
competent parties and are not applicable to a case where there is not and could not
have been any contract at all. It has also been observed in many cases that the court
may, on adjudging the cancellation of an instrument at the instance of a minor,
require the minor to make compensation to the other party to the instrument.

3. A minor cannot ratify an agreement on attaining majority:

Ratification means consenting to a past contract entered into during minority at a future
date on attaining majority. A minor’s contract being nullity and void ab initio has no
existence in the eye of law. Therefore, a minor on attaining majority cannot ratify a
contract entered into while he was a minor. The reason is that a void contract cannot be
validated by any subsequent action and a minor’s contract is void ab initio.

4. Minor’s liability for necessaries supplied to him or to anyone whom

the minor is bound to support: The case of necessaries supplied to a minor is
covered by Section 68 of the Contract Act which provides as follows-‘If a person
incapable of entering into a contract, or anyone whom he is legally bound to support, is
supplied by another person with necessaries suited to his condition in life, the person
who has furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from property of such
incapable person.’ The minor’s property is liable for the payment of a reasonable price
and not the price for necessaries supplied to the minor or to anyone whom the
minor is bound to support. What is a necessary article is to be determined from
the status and the social position of the minor.

5. The Rule of Estoppel does not apply to a minor: Section 115 of the
Indian Evidence Act explains that-‘The principle of estoppel is a rule of evidence.
When a man has, by words spoken or written or by conduct, induced another to
believe that a certain state of things exists, he will not be allowed to deny the
existence of that state of things.’ Lord Halsbury has written that-‘Estoppel arises
when you are precluded from denying the truth of anything which you have
represented as a fact, although it is not a fact.’ In India it has been held that the court
can direct the minor to pay compensation to the other party in cases where an infant
obtains a loan by falsely representing his age he cannot be made to pay the amount of
the loan as damages for fraud, nor can be compelled in equity to repay the money.

6. Specific Performance Order by Court will never be issued to a minor:

As we are aware that an agreement by as minor is absolutely void, the court
will never direct specific performance of such a contract by a minor. But a contract
entered into, on behalf of a minor, by his guardian or by the manager of his estate will
be binding on the minor and can be specifically enforced by or against the minor
provide-
• (i) The contract is within the authority of the guardian or manager;

• (ii) It is for the benefit of the minor.

7. Minor as a Partner: Law says that -‘A minor being incompetent to enter into
contract cannot be a partner in a partnership firm; but under Section 30 of the Indian
Partnership Act 1932, he can be admitted to the benefits of partnership with the
consent of all the partners by an agreement executed through his lawful guardian with
the other partners.’ Such a partner will have a right to receive share of the property or
profits of the firm and can have an access to and inspect the books of account of the
firm. The minor cannot participate in the management of the business and can bear
losses of the firm only up to the extent of the capital contribution in the firm. He
cannot be made personally liable for any obligations of the firm, although he may
after attaining majority accept those obligations if he thinks fit to do so.

8. Minor as an Agent: A minor can be appointed as an agent (Sec 184). He can

draw, make, indorse and deliver negotiable instruments so as to bind all parties except
himself. In other words, it can be said that a minor can bind the principal by his acts
done in the course of the agency, but he cannot be held personally liable for
negligence or breach of duty.
9. Minor and the insolvency: A minor cannot be adjudicated as an insolvent as
he is incapable of entering into contracting debts. Even for the necessaries supplied
to him, he is not personally liable, only if his property is liable (Sec 68).

10. Contract by a minor and a major jointly: Where a minor and a major
jointly enter into a contract with another person the minor has no liability but the
contract as a whole can be enforced against the major.

11. Surety for a minor: A contract by s minor is void, but a contract by a

guardian on his behalf is valid. Where a guardian enters into a contract in respect of
his property on behalf of the minor, it is valid, provided it is for his benefit or for
legal necessity.

12. Position of minor’s guardian: A contract entered into by the guardian of

a minor on his behalf stands on a different footing from a contract entered into by a
minor himself. A contract by a minor is void but a contract by a guardian on his
behalf is valid provided the obligations undertaken are within the powers of the
guardian. A contract made by the guardian is binding on the minor if it is for the
benefit of the minor or is for legal necessity.

13. Minor as shareholder: According to Contract Act, a minor being

incompetent to contract can not be a shareholder of the company. Therefore a
company can refuse to register, transfer or transmission of shares in favour of a minor
unless the shares are fully paid. A minor acting through his lawful guardian may
become a shareholder of the company, in case of transfer or transmission of fully paid
shares to him.

14. Minor’s Position and Liability in Tort: Tort is a civil wrong. So, minor’s
position in civil wrong is that- ‘A minor is liable for his tort, i.e. a civil wrong unless
the tort is in reality a breach of contract.’
15. Minor’s marriage: Minor’s contracted by their parents and guardians is valid.
It is valid on the ground of the custom of the community.

16. Relinquishment by a minor: A release by a minor of his rights in a property

is absolutely in fructuous in law.
17. Service contracts:

• (i) A contract for personal service by a minor is void under the Indian law and
the mere fact it is for his benefit would not entitle the minor to sue under the
contact.
 • (ii) A minor may bind himself by a contract of apprenticeship if it be for his
benefit but he can not be used for failing to serve as such.

(iii) Contract with minor does not create legal contractual relationship between the
parties. Minor girls entering into a contract of service a person can leave the service
at any time without committing any actionable wrong.

18. Minor’s Parents:

The parents of a minor cannot be held liable for any contract that a minor enters into.
However, they can be held liable incase the minor is acting as their agent.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN INDIAN AND ENGLISH LAW

AS TO MINOR’S CONTRACT

The English Law is the principal source of Indian Law. But the Indian Law differs
from the English Law on the subject of minor’s contracts on the following points:
1. In India the minor’s contract is altogether void but in England it is sometimes
void and sometimes voidable. In England the loan of money to a minor is void.
2. In India, a minor can ratify a fresh consideration of a contract entered into
during minority where as in England he cannot do so.
3. In India a minor on attaining majority can neither sue nor be sued on contracts
entered into by him during minority but in England he can sue on the contract
for damages.
4. In India a minor’s property is liable for the necessaries and not his personal
self acquired property but in England the minor is personally liable.
5. In India there can be no specific performance by or against the minor unless it is a
contract entered into by a guardian on behalf of the minor sand the minor’s benefit. In
England there can be no specific performance for want of mutuality in the contract.
CASE STUDIES

CASE I: Ramchandra vs Manikchand And Anr. on 9/2/1968 (This appeal is

by the defendant. The trial Court has passed a decree for specific performance.)
The suit was filed by the plaintiffs (respondents 1 and 2), when they were minors,
through their guardian, Smt. Phulibai, their mother. Smt. Phulibai had entered into an
agreement dated 30-9-1961 on behalf of the minors for purchasing house property
from the defendant (appellant) for a consideration of Rs. 11,000. Rs. 1,000 was paid
towards earnest and the rest of the amount was to be paid at the time of the
registration of the sale-deed. The relevant term of the agreement was: The purchaser
shall construct a partition wall at his own cost and in the presence and help of the
vendor.
The plaintiffs' case was that the defendant did not obtain permission from the
Municipal Corporation and hence the construction could not be completed. The suit
for specific performance was filed.
The defence was that the breach was committed by the plaintiffs themselves and
that they were not entitled to the specific performance. The defendant, claimed that
he was entitled to the expenses incurred by them; and as the plaintiffs' guardian was
not prepared to pay the amount, the sale-deed was not executed. Thus, the breach
was committed by the plaintiffs.
The trial Court found that the responsibility of constructing the partition wall was that
of the purchaser, even if the defendant spent any amount, he did it at his own risk;
and that, the plaintiffs were always willing to purchase the property and hence
decreed their suit for specific performance. The plaintiffs were not guilty of
committing any breach of the contract and that the defendant was not willing to
execute the sale-deed as per the agreement.
Solution:
The trial court is right as the responsibility of constructing the wall was of plaintiff
(purchaser) and if seller spends the money he did it at his own cost/risk and cannot
claim the amount from the purchaser. Plaintiff has full rights to claim the property of
which she has paid the earnest money and defendant (appellant) has to execute the
sale deed as per the agreement dated 30/09/1961. The appeal should be dismissed.

CASE II: Subrahmanyam's case. 75 Ind App 115 = (AIR 1948 PC 95) 1948
A had executed promissory notes in the sum of Rs. 16,000 in favour of B. He had
also mortgaged certain property to a third party in the sum of Rs. 1,200. A died on
4-10-1935. His widow entered into an agreement dated 29-11-1935 on behalf of her
minor son to transfer the mortgaged property to B for a consideration of Rs. 17,000.
Out of this amount, B was to utilize Rupees 1,200 in redeeming the mortgage and rest
of the amount towards satisfaction of his own debt under the promissory notes. A suit
was filed on behalf of the minor for possession of the property on the ground that the
agreement entered into by his mother was not binding on him. The defence was that
B was protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial Court
held that as A and his son, the minor, were members of a joint Hindu family, the
minor was bound to satisfy the debt. His guardian could have, therefore, validly
transferred the property, as the transfer would have been for the benefit of the minor.
Even though no sale-deed was executed in favour of B, he was entitled to protection
under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This decision was reversed by the
first appellate Court and was confirmed by the High Court.

The guardian of the Hindu minor was, called upon to decide as to whether the
expression 'the transferor' would include a minor on whose behalf the agreement had
been entered into by the guardian. If the transfer would have been affected, the
transfer would have been of the minor's property, and not of his mother, and hence
there was no reason why the minor should not be treated as a transferor.
The High Court was of the view that the observations of the guardians are not
applicable to all contracts entered into on behalf of the minor. We have already
pointed out that the guardian of a Hindu minor could validly transfer his property if it
was for legal necessity or benefit of the estate of the minor; but he had no authority to
purchase any property.
Solution:
A contract by a guardian on his behalf is valid provided the obligations undertaken
are within the powers of the guardian. A contract made by the guardian is binding on
the minor if it is for the benefit of the minor or is for legal necessity. Here the
agreement entered into by the mother of minors is not binding on the minor as the
agreement is not for their benefit. Minor are not bound to satisfy the debt taken by
their guardian. The transfer of the said property to B is not for the benefit of the estate
of the minor, thus null & void
CASE III: Suresh Chandra Pradhan vs Ganesh Chandra De And Ors.
on 2/9/1949
Defendants 1 & 2 are minors & the suit-contract is one entered into on their behalf by
their mother as guardian. The contract was for sailing the property for a sum of Rs. 75
out of which Rs. 35 was paid as advance & the balance was to be paid later.
Defendant 3 who is the sister's husband of defendants l & 2 has purchased the suit
property on 3-2-1943 subsequent to the agreement in favour of the plaintiffs. The
genuineness of the consideration alleged to have been paid thereunder were denied
by the defendants & contested in the courts below. It has been found by the trial
Court that the agreement was true & that a sum of Rs. 35 was paid as an advance
under it. It was also found that the agreement was executed in order to raise money to
repay a decretal debt for Rs. 60 against the minors in respect of which there was an
execution pending at the time. It was further found that defendant 3 was fully aware
of the agreement & took the sale deed in his favour with notice of the same. The
argument that has been advanced on behalf of the defendants is that no specific
performance can be decreed against the minors on the basis of a contract entered into
on their behalf by their guardian even though it may be for legal necessity or for the
benefit of the minor. This contention has been accepted by both the Courts below &
the suit has been accordingly dismissed.

It has been taken as settled law that a mere executory contract entered into by a
guardian on behalf of a minor imposing a personal obligation on the minor's estate is
not valid & binding & it makes no difference that it is for necessity or benefit.
Solution:
A contract by a minor is void but a contract by a guardian on his behalf is valid
provided the obligations undertaken are within the powers of the guardian. A contract
made by the guardian is binding on the minor if it is for the benefit of the minor or is
for legal necessity. Here the contract entered into on their behalf by their guardian is
for legal necessity but no specific performance can be decreed against the minors
because Minor’s liability is only for the necessaries supplied to him.
Contract of apprenticeship, JAMAICA

Pais:
Jamaica
JM
Idioma
Inglés
Resumen:
THE APPRENTICESHIP ACTJune, 1955Contract of apprenticeship means
an agreement whether originally expressed in writing or not made between
an employer and a worker, or between an employer and a worker and the
parent or guardian of the worker, whereby the employer agrees to teach and
the worker agrees to learn any trade in which the employer is engaged.

THE APPRENTICESHIP ACT

June, 1955
Contract of apprenticeship means an agreement whether originally
expressed in writing or not made between an employer and a worker, or
between an employer and a worker and the parent or guardian of the worker,
whereby the employer agrees to teach and the worker agrees to learn any
trade in which the employer is engaged.

Contrato de aprendizaje:

THE APPRENTICESHIP ACT

Reference in the act
------
Preliminary
“apprentice” means a person employed under a contract of
apprenticeship; “apprenticeship order” means an apprenticeship order
“the Board” means the Apprenticeship Board
“contract of apprenticeship” means an agreement whether originally expressed
in writing or not made between an employer and a worker, or between an
employer and a worker and the parent or guardian of the worker, whereby the
employer agrees to teach and the worker agrees to learn any trade in which the
employer is engaged,
(…)

Contracts of Apprenticeship
7.(1) Every contract of apprenticeship entered into after the coming into force
of this Act shall be in writing and shall be signed by the employer and the
apprentice; and if the apprentice is under the age of eighteen years by his
parent or guardian (if any).

(2) Every contract of apprenticeship subsisting at the date of the coming

into force of this Act shall, if it is not already in writing and signed as
aforesaid, be forthwith reduced into writing and so signed.

(3) Where a body corporate is a party to any contract of apprenticeship the

contract need not be under seal but may be signed on behalf of the
corporation by such person or persons as by law are authorized to sign
contracts in writing of the corporation not being
contracts under seal.

(4) Notwithstanding anything in the Stamp Duty Act no stamp duty shall be
payable on a contract of apprenticeship entered into after the coming into
force of this Act.

8. From and after the coming into force of this Act no Restriction subsection
(1) of section 10 or of subsection (2) of section 11, apprentices. employ an
apprentice in any prescribed trade unless a contract of apprenticeship relating
to that apprentice has been registered by the Board in accordance with the
provisions of this Act.

9. (1) Every employer upon entering into a contract of apprenticeship in respect

of any prescribed trade shall transmit the contract to the Board for registration.
(2) The Board may register such contract, or may refuse to register it if in their
opinion the employer will not be able to provide adequate facilities for the
training of the apprentice or the contract does not comply with the provisions
of this Act or of any apprenticeship order.

(3) Where the Board decide to register a contract of apprenticeship they

shall cause to be recorded in a register to be kept for the purpose such
particulars of the contract as they may determine and shall endorse on the
contract a note of its registration.

(4) Whenever the Board refuse to register a contract of apprenticeship they

shall forthwith inform the parties thereto by notice in writing of their refusal
and the grounds therefor.

(5) A contract of apprenticeship which is required to be registered under this

section shall not confer or impose any rights or obligations on the parties
thereto until it has been registered by the Board in accordance with the
provisions of this Act.

10.41) A person employing an apprentice in any trade of which becomes a

prescribed trade after the employment of the apprentice commenced may
continue to employ the apprentice in such trade notwithstanding that the
contract of apprenticeship is not a registered contract.

(2) In any such case the employer shall forthwith upon the trade becoming a
prescribed trade transmit the contract of apprenticeship to the Board who
shall record it in the manner provided in subsection (3) of section 9.

11.-(1) Any person alfected by the refusal of the Board, to register a

contract of apprenticeship under section 9 may appeal in the prescribed
manner to the Tribunal whose decision shall be final and conclusive.

(2) In any case where an appeal has been lodged against a refusal to
register a contract of apprenticeship the Board may if they think fit, on
application, grant a permit in the prescribed form for the employment of the
worker in accordance with the contract pending the decision of the Tribunal.
12.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this section
(a) an apprentice who is a party to a registered contract shall be bound
thereby throughout its currency notwithstanding that the apprentice may have
attained the age of eighteen years;

(b) a parent or guardian of an apprentice who is a party to a registered

contract shall be bound thereby until the apprentice attains the age of
eighteen years and no longer.

(2) At any time during the period of probation prescribed by a registered

contract, the contract may be cancelled by the employer or by the apprentice
where the apprentice has attained the age of eighteen years, or by the
apprentice and his parent or guardian (if any) where the apprentice is under
the age of eighteen years.

(3) A registered contract may be cancelled by the Board at any time upon the
application of the eiiiployer or of the apprentice where the apprentice has
attained the age of eighteen years, or of the apprentice and his parent or
guardian (if any) where the apprentice is under the age of eighteen years:
Provided that where any party to such contract notifies the Board that he
objects to the cancellation of the contract the Board shall not cancel the
contract without affording to that party, or to any person chosen by him to
represent his views, an opportunity to be heard.

13.-(1) In any case where an apprentice who is a party to a registered

contract so misconducts himself or proves himself to be so incapable that if
he were an employee other than an apprentice it would be reasonable for his
employer to discharge him: the employer may suspend him and apply to the
Board for leave to discharge him.

(2) Every such application shall be made within three days after the
apprentice is so suspended and where such application is duly made the
employer may withhold any wages accruing due to the apprentice in
respect of the period of suspension.

(3) The Board shall consider the application after giving the employer, the
apprentice and his parent or guardian (if any) an opportunity to be heard and may
grant or refuse leave to discharge the apprentice. If for the purposes of such
hearing the person to whom the opportunity is afforded so desires, the like
opportunity shall be afforded to a person chosen by him to represent his views.

(4) Where any such leave is granted the employer shall be entitled to discharge
the apprentice as from the date on which he was suspended and in any such
case the contract of apprenticeship shall be deemed to be cancelled.

(5) Where leave as aforesaid is refused the Board may make such order as
they think fit as to payment wages to the apprentice in respect of the period of
his suspension. If no such order is made the employer shall pay to the
apprentice all wages that would have been payable to him in respect of the
period of suspension had he not been suspended.

(6) The employer or the apprentice may within seven days after the Board have
granted or refused leave to discharge the apprentice appeal in the prescribed
manner to the Tribunal, whose decision shall be final and conclusive.

(7) If the employer, notwithstanding that leave to discharge the apprentice has
been refused by the Board or, in the case of appeal, by the Tribunal,
discharges the apprentice such discharge shall for all purposes be conclusive
proof of a breach by the employer of the contract of apprenticeship.

(8) If the Tribunal in determining any appeal as aforesaid decide in favour of

the apprentice they may fix an amount which shall be payable to the
apprentice as damages for breach of the contract of apprenticeship in, the
event of the employer discharging him contrary to the determination of the
Tribunal, or the Tribunal may in lieu of fixing such amount grant leave to the
apprentice to make to the Tribunal ex parte an application for the fixing
thereof in the event of the employer discharging the apprentice contrary to the
determination of the Tribunal.
Any such amount shall be in addition to the amount of wages payable in
respect of the period of suspension.

(9) The amount (if any) so fixed by the Tribunal shall in the event of the
apprentice being unlawfully discharged constitute a civil debt to the apprentice
by the employer and may be recovered in the Resident Magistrate’s Court.
(10) Where an employer without proceeding in accordance with the foregoing
provisions of this section discharges or purports to discharge an apprentice or
having suspended him does not within three days thereafter make application
as aforesaid for leave to discharge him the apprentice may within seven days
after discharge or within ten days after the suspension, as the case may be,
apply to the Board for relief from the discharge or suspension and thereupon
the provisions of this section shall apply in like manner as if the employer had
proceeded in accordance with subsection (1).
(…)

19.-(1) Whenever for any reason (including the completion of his contract of
apprenticeship) an apprentice under a registered contract ceases to be
employed by his employer, it shall be the duty of the employer to supply to the
Board a statement in the prescribed form setting foith particulars of the
service of the apprentice.

(2) The Board shall forthwith endorse a note of the termination on the
registered contract and on every copy thereof submitted to them for
that purpose by any of the parties to the contract.

20. On being satisfied that an apprentice has duly completed his

apprenticeship under a registered contract the Board shall supply to the
apprentice a certificate in the prescribed form that the apprentice has duly
completed his apprenticeship.
POSITION:
England
Competence based awards (known as National Vocational Qualifications – NVQs)
and, in Scotland, SVQs) remain the central qualification within an apprenticeship to
this day. There has also been a determined attempt to address adult basic skill deficits
within apprenticeships, with a requirement since 2003/04 for apprentices to attain
‘Key skill’ units as part of their program6, and the SASE now specifies the expected
attainment levels in key skill or equivalent subjects. For example, a Level 2
apprentice should either have (upon entry) or attain (by completion) one out of the
following range of eleven numeracy qualifications.
Following earlier concerns regarding the failure of NVQs to enable a young person to
build a coherent body of knowledge and the findings of the Cassels report (2001) that
apprentices in some sectors were not acquiring any new knowledge above and beyond
that gained in everyday work, in 2005 the government introduced a requirement that
every apprenticeship should include a knowledge-based Technical Certificate as well as
an NVQ. In order to be awarded an apprenticeship an individual had to complete an
NVQ, have or attain key skill units or equivalents and complete a technical certificate.
However, in 2007, the government dropped the requirement for the technical certificate
and required apprenticeship frameworks only to demonstrate how the knowledge-based
element formed part of the mandatory NVQ.

Since then the SASE has introduced minimum levels of off-the-job and on-the-job
Guided Learning Hours (GLH). However, disparities remain between sectors
regarding how the knowledge component is defined and delivered7. As Fuller &
Unwin observed in their submission in early 2012 to the Public Accounts
Committee’s examination of adult apprenticeships, while this means that ‘some
apprentices (notably in sectors such as engineering) will attend college on day-release
to study for a separate and substantial knowledge-based qualification (sometimes
referred to as a Technical Certificate) as well as an NVQ....for most apprentices, the
‘knowledge element’ as stated above will not involve participation in a recognized
off- the-job course. It will either be embedded in the NVQ or, if it is separate, will
lead to an award with very limited recognition, currency and value. In the NVQ
model, at Level 2 and 3, knowledge will be assessed as part of the observation of task
performance by the assessor asking questions ... and through the inclusion of
statements of evidence in the candidate’s portfolio’ (Fuller & Unwin, 2012). It is
unclear at present the extent to which the SASE requirements are serving to improve
the knowledge component of apprenticeships.
The SASE now also specifies the need for all apprenticeships to contain a ‘Personal
Learning and Thinking and Skills’ component (PLTS) comprised of the following:
a. Independent enquiry

b. Creative thinking

c. Reflective learning

d. Team working

e. Self management

f. Effective participation.

The SASE guidance also states that any proposed apprenticeship framework must
specify where achievement of the PLTS is located within the Apprenticeship
framework, either within a qualification or elsewhere, and how achievement is to be
evidenced.

India
Apprenticeship in India means a system of training in which an employer engages a
person as an apprentice, to train him systematically in the designated trade for the
respective period prescribed under the Apprentices Act. The Indian National
Apprenticeship Scheme started in 1959 on a voluntary basis. Not having achieved
the expected results, the apprenticeship scheme was brought under the ambit of the
Apprentices Act in 1961 and implemented effectively in 1962. It had mainly two
objectives:
To regulate the programme of training of apprentices in the industry so as to
conform to the prescribed syllabi, period of training, etc. as laid down by the Central
Apprenticeship Council.
To utilize fully the facilities available in industry for imparting practical training
with a view to meeting the requirements of skilled manpower for industry.
There are four categories of Apprentices: 1. Trade Apprentices, 2. Graduate
Apprentices, 3. Technician Apprentices and 4. Technician (Vocational) Apprentices.
The Directorate General of Employment & Training (DGET) is responsible for
implementation of the Act in respect of Trade Apprentices in the Central Government
Undertakings and Departments. The Department of Secondary and higher Education
in the Ministry of Human Resource Development is responsible for implementation
of the Act in respect of Graduate, Technician and Technician (Vocational)
Apprentices. It is obligatory on the part of employers both in public and private sector
establishments have training infrastructure – as laid down in the act – to engage
apprentices. As per the annual report (2008-2009) of the Ministry of Labour and
Employment (http://dget.nic.in/), 254 groups of industries are covered under the Act,
and about 23,900 establishments engage apprentices. Apprentices are paid a stipend,
which is specified in government regulations and revised every two years, based on
the consumer price index (DGET, 2007). The arrangements vary with the category of
apprenticeship.
The stipend of Trade apprentices are paid by the employer and increases over the
period of the training program: the monthly rates are Rs. 1490 in 1st year, Rs. 1700
in 2nd year, Rs. 1970 in 3rd year and Rs. 2220 in 4th year (with effect from 18th
October, 2010). The stipend of graduate, technician and technician (vocational)
apprentices is shared equally between the employer and the government. In 2008 it
was Rs. 2600 per month for graduate apprentices, Rs. 1850 for technician apprentices
and Rs. 1440 for technician (vocational) apprentices (Annual Report MOLE, 2009).
Educational prerequisites apply to each apprenticeship, such as successful completion of
Year 8 of schooling, Year 10, Year 12 or a degree. Apprenticeships are time-based, with
the duration specified at six months, one year, 18 months, two years, three years or four
years. The assessment of apprentices at the end of their training is undertaken using the
All India Trade Test, administrated by the National Council for Vocational Training. The
number of apprenticeship places available in each occupation and region is officially set.
Seats for trade apprentices are located by the Apprenticeship Advisor on the basis of
prescribed ratio of apprentices to workers and availability of training facilities. Every
apprentice and employer needs to enter into a contract of apprentice training which is
registered by the Apprenticeship Advisers.

Several recurring themes in the critical commentary made by World Bank Report
(2008), OECD Report (2007) on India’s education and training systems including
the Apprenticeship and Craftsmen Training Schemes are as follows:
• The country has an oversupply of higher education graduates, many of whom
work in occupations where their skills are under-utilized.
• Economic progress is being held back because the vocational education and
training system produces insufficient numbers of workers in technician, trade and
skilled occupations.
• The teaching workforce available to provide training in technician, trade and
skilled occupations is inadequate and includes many graduates who have
inappropriate qualifications or experience.
• Employers are generally very dissatisfied with the country’s training
arrangements and have had only limited success in persuading the national and
provincial governments to implement reforms. Many large firms resort to
doing their own training, but the qualifications have no official recognition.
The Indian Apprentices Act was conceived with the principles of ‘learning by earning’
and ‘learning by doing’, and targeted to utilize fully the facilities available in industry
for imparting practical training with a view to meeting the requirements of skilled
manpower for industry. It has been amended multiple times over the years to address
issues of the employers, industry, candidates and government. But these changes have
not had the desired impact. The number of apprentices in the country has remained
stagnant and has not increased in numbers over the years. Only 215,000 persons were
undergoing apprenticeship training against a seating capacity of
320,000 in 2008-2009 (DGET Report). There are many reasons for low utilization
of seats. Low rates of the stipend are one of the impediments for the low utilization
of apprentices. Besides ITI-passed trainees prefer to go for employment as they
would get more as wages than a stipend. Also, no assurance of regular employment
is made for trainees after completion of apprenticeship training.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Websites
1. https://contracts.uslegal.com/contract-by-a-minor/

2. http://law.jrank.org/pages/4408/Apprentice.html

3. https://racolblegal.com/capacity-to-contracts-beneficial-contracts/

4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1972437/

5. http://www.oitcinterfor.org/node/2344