Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shakti Singh Rathore & Ors vs A.V.V.N.Ltd.,Ajmer & Ors on 7 July, 2008
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
1
(1) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4910/2007
(Ram Lal Prajapat v. AVVNigam Ltd. & Ors.)
(2) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4581/2007
(Jitendra Tak v. JVVNigam Ltd. & Ors.)
(3) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4622/2007
(Karan Singh v. AVVNigam Ltd. & Anr.)
(4) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4631/2007
(Karan Singh v. JVVNigam Ltd. & Ors.)
(5) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4636/2007
(Suresh Kumar Maru & Ors. v. RRVP Ltd. & Ors.)
(6) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4815/2007
(Shakti Singh Rathore & Ors. v. AVVNigam Ltd. & Ors.)
(7) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4816/2007
(Shakti Singh Rathore & Ors. v. JVVNigam Ltd. & Ors.)
(8) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4845/2007
(Pushpendra Sharma & Anr. v. AVVNigam Ltd. & Ors.)
Date of Order :: 7 th July, 2008
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
Mr. Girish Sankhla ]
Mr. S.P.Sharma ] for the petitioners.
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi]
Mr. Ravi Bhansali, for the respondents.
....
Having involved similar questions of law, these petitions for writ are heard together and are also disposed by this common order.
The petitioners, who are undergoing apprenticeship with the respondent government companies as per the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1961"), are claiming for preference in direct 2 recruitment in the form of mandatory appointment against the existing vacancies.
The contentions of the petitioners are that
1. in pursuant to the instructions given by the Government of Rajasthan vide circular dated NIL (Anx.8) and the circular dated 26.2.1996 circulated by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, a preference while making appointment against the existing vacancies must be given to the apprentices already working; and
2. in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. v. U.P.Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh & Ors., reported in (1995)2 SCC 1, the petitioners are entitled for appointment with the respondent companies against the existing vacancies.
Per contra, as per the respondents the petitioners cannot claim appointment against the existing vacancies those are to be filled in/have been filled in by way of direct recruitment. The right of the petitioners even as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra) is only to the extent of 3 getting preference if other things are equal with other open market aspirants.
Heard counsel for the parties.
As per the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1961, the petitioners are trainees with the respondents and not workers and the provisions relating to the labour are not applicable in relation to the petitioners. Section 22 of the Act of 1961 in most unambiguous terms prescribes 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 his apprenticeship training in his establishment, nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to accept an employment under the employer". An obligation regarding employment after completion of successful apprenticeship is subject to the conditions referred in contract of apprenticeship irrespective of the provisions of sub-section(1) of Section 22 of the Act of 1961.
In the instant matters, according to the respondents there was no condition in contract of apprenticeship that appointment shall be given to the petitioners after successful completion of their apprenticeship training. Counsel for the petitioners utterly failed to point out any such conditions in the contract of apprenticeship. The petitioners, 4 therefore, are having no vested right to be employed mandatorily with the respondent companies on successful completion of apprenticeship. The circulars referred by the petitioners issued by the Government of Rajasthan and by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India prescribe only for extending a preference to the apprentices while making direct recruitment against the existing vacancies and a preference shall be given to the petitioners while making appointments, vis-a-vis the persons having equal merit.
So far as the second contention of counsel for the petitioners relating to the application of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra) is concerned, suffice to mention that the directions given by Hon'ble Supreme court are for grant of preference on other things being equal. Such preference has already been extended by the respondent corporation to the petitioners. In the case referred above Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down following points to be kept in mind while dealing with the claims of the apprenticeship:-
"(1)Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.
(2)For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment 5 exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India v. N.Hargopal would permit this.
(3)If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same would be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any, in the service rule concerned. If the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training would be given.
(4)The training institute concerned would maintain a list of the persons trained yearwise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to those who are senior."
Hon'ble Supreme Court as a matter of fact in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra) held that in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act of 1961 it is not obligatory on part of the employer to offer any employment to any apprentice who has completed the period of apprenticeship in the establishment unless there be a condition in contract to the contrary. The directions given as referred above relate to the mode for grant of preference and that preference in no manner can be interpreted as a mandatory appointment to the apprentices with the establishment where they are undergoing the training. The respondent companies are giving preference to the 6 petitioners vis-a-vis the other persons on other things being equal. No grievance is raised by the petitioners regarding the age limit or any discrepancy in maintenance of seniority among the apprentices. Thus, it can be safely said that the respondent companies are adhering the points of attraction noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra).
These petitions for writ, for the reasons stated above, are having no merit and, therefore, are dismissed.
( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.
kkm/ps.