Madras High Court
Tamilnadu Private Industrial Training ... vs The Director General Of Employment & ... on 7 March, 2012
Author: Vinod K.Sharma
Bench: Vinod K.Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.03.2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.No.18425 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.1,2 of 2011 Tamilnadu Private Industrial Training Centre and Industrial Schools Association rep by its General Secretary, Thiru V.Edvin Paul No.12, Kamaraj Nagar Main Road, Avadi, Chennai-600 071 .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Employment & Training Ministry of Labour, Sharam Shakthi Bhavan Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110 001 2.The Regional Director of Apprenticeship Training, (Southern Region) CTI Campus, Guindy, Chennai-600 032 3.The Director of Employment & Training Guindy, Chennai-600 032 .. Respondents Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the circular issued by the 1st respondent in DGET-7/24/2011-MES/IS dated 05.07.2011 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to settle the claim for reimbursement of Training and Testing fee to the members of the petitioner association for conducting the Modular Employable Skills (MES) course under Skill Development Initiative Scheme (SDI scheme). For Petitioner : Mr.P.Murugian For Respondents : Mr.K.M.Venugopal for R1 and 2 Mr.P.Karthikeyan for R3 ***** O R D E R
PetitionerTamilnadu Private Industrial Training Centre and Industrial Schools Association, has moved this court with a prayer for issuance for writ, in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 05.07.2011, passed by the Director General of Employment and Training, Ministry of Labour.
2. The impugned order issued by the Government of India is addressed to Director of Employment and Training, Guindy, chennai reads as under:
DGET-7/24/2011MES/IS Government of India Ministry of Labour & Employment Directorate General of Employment & Training New Delhi, dated the 5th July 2011 To, The Director Director or Employment & Training Guindy, Chennai-600 032 Sub: Verification and authentication of pending bill Sir, Please refer to your letter No.Plan1/SDI-MES/43899/2010-11 dated 29-03-2011 wherein certain clarifications have been sought from DGET, NEW Delhi on the subject cited above.
In this regard, it is stated that after going through the details of the pending bills mentioned in the above referred letter, it has been observed that VPTs did not inform the nodal ITIs before starting the training courses which is mandatory under the clause 3 of C.2 "Admission/Registration of candidates" and further some of the VTPs did not collect training fee too. As such, it is a clear contravention of the laid down norms and hence these VTPs are not entitled to get reimbursement of training cost under SDI scheme. However, candidates of the said VPTs can be treated as direct candidates subject to fulfillment of the following conditions of the implementation Manual (January 2008):-
1. Assessments were conducted in designated testing centres (Clause D.2 at P-17) which were informed to RDATs by the assessing bodies.
2. Details of assessors with their contact details were sent to testing centers by the assessing bodies (Clause D.5-vi(b)) The abstracts of the pending bills which were sent by VTPs fall under the following three categories:-
i. VTPs had communicated the training details to RDAT Chennai and RDAT had acknowledged it. Training fee and testing fee have been collected with proper receipt and paid to the assessing bodies through demand draft. Hence, all activities appear to be genuine but VTPs did not inform the Nodal ITI.
ii. VTPs had communicated the training details through post to RDAT, Cvhennai but in response, the RDAT Chennai did not send any acknowledgement. Training fee and testing fee was collected and paid to the assessing body property. But, they did not inform the details to Nodal ITI.
Iii. No communication to RDAT, Chennai to available and further training fee and testing fee was not collected by the VTP. In this regard they have stared that training fee and testing fee was borne by VTP itself, considering the poor background of the candidates. They also did not inform the Nodal ITI.
The pending bills details for the financial year 2010-11 are given below:
S.No VTPs/ABs Amount 1 Private Rs.12,74,29,759.00 2 Govt Rs.11,69,14,500.00 3 Abs Rs.1,53,83,300.00 In this regard, it is submitted that the nodal ITI was designated under SDI scheme to coordinate with VTPs and provide support to the assessing bodies in its regiion (clause 3 of C.2 "Admission/Registration of candidates' of implementation manual (January,2008)-VTP will submit list of the trainees to the nodal Government ITIs. It has been found all the above cited VTPs did not inform the nodal Govt.ITIs about the training schedule and therefore, the VTPs fall under above three categories are not entitled to get the benefits of reimbursement. However, VTPs at SI.1&2 informed RDAT Chennai and hence the candidates from the said VTPs which may be treated as Direct candidates. As regards reimbursement of payment to successful eligible direct candidates,RDAT, Chennai must ensure that Abs had submitted the requisite information as depicted above para 1 and 2. It is requested that necessary actions may be taken at your end in accordance with above said observations.
3. The impugned letter only deals with verification and authentication of pending bills. The letter also clarifies that nodal ITI was designated under SDI scheme to co-ordinate with VTPs and provide support to the assessing bodies in its region. VTPs are to submit the list of trainees to the nodal ITIs.
4. It is mentioned in the letter that all of the above cited VTPs did not inform the Nodal Government ITIs about training schedule. Therefore VTPs fall under above three categories who are not entitled to get the benefits of reimbursement. However, VTPs students are directed to be treated as direct candidates.
5. It has been further directed that in order to be eligible for reimbursement the requisite information is required to be taken. The directions have been issued to the Director for taking action thereunder, as per rules.
6. The impugned letter does not deal with the rights of the parties, but is in the nature of instructions, to the Director to deal with the issue of reimbursement by taking note, that the scheme is strictly complied with.
7. The association has filed this case, to challenge this letter on the ground, that the Government has categorized the ITI in three categories without verifying the facts, and ordered its trainee to be treated as direct candidates.
8. The writ is totally misconceived. The reading of the impugned letter shows, that it is merely a direction issued to the Director to take action to cover the ITI in three categories referred to above and in the interest of the candidates it is mentioned that ITI which failed to complying with scheme, that the candidates be treated as direct candidates so that the certificate granted to them are not cancelled. It cannot be seen as adverse order against any ITI.
9. The grievance if any will be with the ITI, when any action is taken by the Director in pursuance to the direction. The ITI concerned will have a locus standi to challenge the order after it is passed, if it is not based on true facts or is otherwise violation of any law.
10. The petitioner association does not have locus standi to challenge the impugned letter as it cannot challenge the guideline to 3rd respondent to implement the scheme. Even otherwise this writ petition is not competent. Association by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a aggrieved party as each Industrial Training Centre will have to challenge the order if any passed by giving details and figures etc to show whether action of the respondent is illegal or arbitrary. In absence of any order, merely because guidelines are issued to implement the scheme, cannot be a ground to approach this court.
11. No merits. Dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Director General of Employment & Training Ministry of Labour, Sharam Shakthi Bhavan Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110 001
2.The Regional Director of Apprenticeship Training, (Southern Region) CTI Campus, Guindy, Chennai-600 032
3.The Director of Employment & Training Guindy, Chennai 600 032