Kerala High Court
Anjali Sivadas vs Union Of India
Author: Shaji P. Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 27TH POUSHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 40039 of 2017
PETITIONER:
ANJALI SIVADAS,
AGED 20 YEARS, D/O SHIVADAS, ANJALIYIL,
THAMALAKADU P.O., KUMARAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA
BY ADV.SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
C.I.T CAMPUS, THARARANI, CHENNAI- 600 003
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD,
KISSAN JYOTHI FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 023
3. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD
ADMINSITRATIVE BUILDING, BAG NO.1653,
PERAMANNOOR P.O. COCHIN- 682 015
*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED
*ADDL.R4: DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND REGIONAL CENTRAL APPRETICESHIP ADVISOR,
BOARD OF APPRENTICESHIP TRAINEE, SOUTHERN REGION, MINISTRY OF
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CIT CAMPUS, THARAMANI, CHENNAI.
*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 12/1/18 IN
IA.NO.302/18.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC
R3 BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND (SR.)
SMT.LATHA ANAND
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17-01-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PBS
WP(C).No. 40039 of 2017 (D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBITP1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE STATE
BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION DATED 01-08-2017
EXHIBITP2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY
THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SUPERVISORY
DEVELOPMENT CENTRE, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL
EDUCAITON
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CALLA LETTER DATED 03-10-2017
ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA AGRO
INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CALL LETTER FROM COCHIN
SHIPYARD
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER DATED
16-11-2017
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER TO THE
MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES,
KISSAN JYOTHI, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED
24-11-2017
EXHIBITP7 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE MESSAGE ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF CHAPTER-II
OF APPRENTICE ACT 1961 WITH REGARD TO SECTION 7-
TERMINATION OF APPRENTICESHIP CONTRACT
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT NIL
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
PBS
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.40039 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2018
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering. She got registered in Supervisory Development Centre Department of Technical Education, Kalamassery, in order to undergo apprenticeship. Petitioner applied to four companies for securing engagement as apprentice trainee. Petitioner was issued with a call letter by the 2nd respondent, viz., Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., [shortly called 'KAICO'], at its Ambalapuzha branch. According to the petitioner, after selecting the applicant, the concerned company has to enter an agreement with National Apprentice Training Scheme for one year. The nature of the work is in respect to brokerage, buying and selling of agricultural equipments. However, petitioner's interest and scope for higher education is in ship maintenance technology. Petitioner received another call letter from the 3rd respondent, concerning ship maintenance.
2. Accordingly, petitioner attended the interview and got 1st rank and joined in Shipyard as apprentice trainee in W.P.(C) No.40039 of 2017 2 ship maintenance. Thereupon, petitioner sent resignation letter to the 2nd respondent. Though the resignation was accepted, the National Apprentice Training Scheme (NATS) did not accept the same for the reason that, as per the Apprentices Act, 1961, a candidate is entitled to do apprenticeship only once, and further that, transfer from one establishment to another is not possible, just against the provision of Sec.7 of Chapter-II of Apprentices Act, 1961. According to the petitioner, if NATS is not giving the approval, petitioner will not get the certificate and stipend from the NATS. It is also stated that, since the petitioner is relieved and joined the Shipyard, petitioner is entitled to carry on the apprenticeship with the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P4 call letter. It is also contended by the petitioner that, pursuant to Ext.P4, entry passes are issued to the petitioner and petitioner has worked.
3. First respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner, basically relying upon various provisions of Apprentices Act, 1961. It is the case of the 1st respondent that, in order to apply Sec.5 for novation of the W.P.(C) No.40039 of 2017 3 apprenticeship agreement, there are certain formalities to be undertaken by the petitioner as well as the employer. Such an exercise is not undertaken, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to join in any other establishment as an apprentice. Other contentions are also raised.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned CGC and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.
5. In view of the limited nature of order I propose to pass, notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with. Having evaluated the situation and the provisions of Apprentices Act, 1961, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioner will have to move necessary application before the former employer in order to terminate her apprenticeship, so as to have the continuance of the apprenticeship as is contemplated under Sec.5 of the Apprentices Act, 1961. That exercise is not undertaken by the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought my attention to Ext.P7 communication by and between the 2nd respondent and the 4th respondent. However, I find that the W.P.(C) No.40039 of 2017 4 communication may not suffice, since no references are made thereunder with reference to any application submitted by the petitioner for terminating her apprenticeship.
7. That being the situation, petitioner is given the liberty to approach the 2nd respondent with a suitable application for terminating her apprenticeship, which shall be considered by the 2nd respondent at the earliest possible time, and upload the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules in vogue, so as to enable the 4th respondent to consider the same in accordance with law, and a decision shall be taken within three weeks from the date of uploading of the application by the 2nd respondent. If and when the petitioner is able to secure necessary termination order from the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent shall take into account the stipulations contained under Ext.P4, and permit the petitioner to join the establishment and proceed in accordance with law. The 4th respondent shall also consider the approval as provided under Rule 3(2)(c) of the Apprenticeship Rules, 1992. W.P.(C) No.40039 of 2017 5
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE St/-
17.01.2018