Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: apprentice preference in G.Baskar Don Bosco vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 29 November, 2006Matching Fragments
7. Mr.S.Vaidyanathan and Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, learned counsels appearing for the respective Workmen submitted that the awards of the Labour Court are based on the factual findings and relief was granted taking note of the relief granted to Mamundiraj and other workmen, which was accepted by the Management. The said factual findings not being perverse, the same cannot be assailed. The learned counsels further submitted that the cessation of work is amounting to termination and retrenchment under section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the mandatory conditions contained in Section 25-N read with 25-F having not been followed, the termination/disengagement is void and illegal. The learned counsels also argued that the Juniors appointed after the appointment of the workmen herein in similar fashion were retained and new workmen were recruited and the said action is in violation of section 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The action of the management is discriminatory as the benefit extended to Mamundiraj and others are denied to the workmen herein, apart from engaging them as temporary workmen, which is an unfair labour practice. It is also argued that the action of the management is in violation of section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to the Workmen) Act, 1981 and the retrenchment/ disengagement of the Workmen are with mala fide intention as the works were given to the contract workmen initially and thereafter on the job trainees. The action of the management is contrary to the assurance given before this court in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed in WPMP No.8720 of 1993 in WP.No.19617 of 1992. The learned counsel also argued that the Constitution Bench Judgment relied upon by the management is not applicable to the facts of these cases since that case arose under the Service law and not under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is further argued that the respondents were selected for apprenticeship training after their names were sponsored through employment exchange and once they were selected as apprentices through due process, again their names need not be sponsored through employment exchange for their appointment as the apprentices are entitled to get preference for getting employment in the same establishment and the same was the practice followed by the management all these years. Ultimately, the learned counsel argued that clause 4.4 and 6.1 of the recruitment rules of the BHEL management are followed while appointing/engaging the respondents workmen by the petitioner management and therefore the management is not justified in now contending that the workmen herein are back door entrants and were selected in violation of the recruitment rules. The learned counsels also cited various decisions to support their contentions.
(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 exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India v. Hargopal, AIR 1987 SC 1227, 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 concerned service rule. 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 concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained year wise. 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."
The above said decision is followed in the subsequent decision reported in (2000) 5 SCC 438 = 2000 (3) LLN 20 (U.P.Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprentice Welfare Association and another v. State of U.P. And others).
19. It is the case of the workmen that after 1993, the Workmen were deliberately not given permanent posting as given to the previous batch-mates and they were given appointment only as temporary workmen for 2 to 6 years with artificial breaks even though they were also selected and appointed as per the recruitment rule 4.4, at the induction level of non executive categories in 'A' group salary grades (Technical) appointments.