Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajesh vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 December, 2016
Author: Sangeet Lodha
Bench: Sangeet Lodha
( 1 of 4 )
[CW-6955/2014]
+IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B.CIVIL WRIT NO. 6955 / 2014
Rajesh S/o Shri Shyam Sunder Kumawat, aged about 38 years,
resident of Near Ghanshyam Studio, Fauz Mohalla, Nathdwara,
District Rajsamand (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Department of Secondary Education and Higher
Education, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Board of Apprenticeship Training (Northern Region),
Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Department of Secondary Education and Higher
Education, Plot No.16, Block 1-A Lakhanpur, GT Road, Kanpur-
208024 (U.P.)
3. The State of Rajasthan through the Additional Chief
Engineer, Irrigation Division, Udaipur, District Udaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
__________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr.Bhawani Singh
__________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
Judgment 15/12/2016
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to appoint him on appropriate post keeping in view the provisions of Apprentice Act, 1961, amended from time to time.
2. The facts relevant are that on being found suitable, name of the petitioner was referred by the Board of Apprenticeship Training to the Additional Chief Engineer, Department of ( 2 of 4 ) [CW-6955/2014] Irrigation, Government of Rajasthan vide communication dated 18.4.2000 to engage him as Apprentice Trainee. Accordingly, vide order dated 19.5.2000 issued by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Kankaroli, the petitioner was engaged as Apprentice Trainee. After completion of training of one year, the petitioner was relieved vide order dated 19.5.01.
3. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that during the training he was not paid the stipend and even after lapse of so many years, the petitioner has not been offered employment giving him priority.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is an unemployed youth, who had undergone apprentice training for a period of one year in the respondent establishment, yet has not been offered the suitable employment and thus, the purpose of the training extended stands frustrated. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents are under an obligation to give the petitioner priority in employment.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Section 22 of the Act of 1961 provides in unequivocal terms that it shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer any employment to any apprentice who has completed the period of apprenticeship training in his establishment unless there is a condition in the contract to the contrary. It is not the ( 3 of 4 ) [CW-6955/2014] case of the petitioner that the contract of apprenticeship training entered into between the petitioner and the respondent contains any such condition that on successful completion of the training he will be offered employment. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot claim employment as a matter of right.
7. In the matter of U.P.State Electricity Board vs. Shiv Mohan Singh & Anr.(2004(8) SCC 402), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the various provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961 has held as under:-
"42. As per the scheme of the Act it appears that the contract of apprenticeship is entered into between employer and apprentice, and the apprentice has to undergo a training for fixed duration and he will get stipend for that. After successfully undergoing training he appears for test for certificate as required under Section
21. During the traning period he will be treated as an apprentice and he shall not be deemed as a workman as per Section 18 of the Act read with the definition of "workman" under Section 2(r). It is ordained in clause (b) of Section 18 that provisions of any law tih respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to such apprentices. Therefore,on a reading of all the provisions together, what transpires is that an apprentice will be treated as apprentice and he will not acquire the status of workman in that establishment. After the successful completion of training he will undergo a test and on being successful in the test a certificate to that effect will be issued to him as per Section 21. It is open for the employer to offer him employment but it will not be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to serve that employer as per Section 22 except when there is specific condition of contract to that effect. During the course when he undergoes the apprenticeship training he is only entitled to get stipend under Rule 11 at such rates as are prescribed in the Rules."(emphasis added) ( 4 of 4 ) [CW-6955/2014]
8. It is not the case set out by the petitioner that pursuant to the vacancies advertised by the respondents, he applied for appointment on any particular post, wherein he was denied preferential employment and thus, the claim of the petitioner regarding denial of priority in employment is also devoid of any substance.
9. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, as prayed for.
10. The writ petition lacks merit, it is hereby dismissed in limine.
(SANGEET LODHA)J. vij