Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The unamended Section 22 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 has not made any obligation on the part of the employer to offer any employment to any apprentice who had completed the period of apprenticeship. However, the first https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent was recruiting the apprentices whenever vacancies arises in various posts notwithstanding the fact that there was no obligation under the Act whenever regular vacancy is notified for recruitment. The first respondent following the pattern of calling for names in the ratio of 1:5 from Employment Exchange and separate notification will be issued to the ex-apprentices simultaneously. Even though there is no written policy for recruitment of Ex- Apprentices in the first respondent establishment, the first respondent was giving preference for ex-apprentices when regular vacancies are filled up. The first respondent was not conducting written examination during the recruitment. Now, under the guise of implementing the judgment of this Court in W.A.No. 1027 of 2013 dated 09.06.2014 the first respondent has changed the pattern of selection. The petitioners have no grievance whatsoever with regard to change of pattern for selection by advertising the post and calling for applications from open market and to require the candidates to undergo written examination. However, the said pattern of selection cannot be made applicable to the ex- apprentices, since the ex-apprentices have now acquired right to be considered for appointment as per the amended provision of Section 22 of the Apprentices Act, 1961. The unamended provision of Section 22 did not provide for mandatory or rightful claim to be made by the Ex-apprentices for recruitment. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis The amended Section 22(1) states that every employer shall formulate its own policy for recruiting any apprentice who has completed the period of apprenticeship training in his establishment. The above amendment now creates a mandatory obligation on the employer to formulate or evolve a policy or scheme to recruit the apprentices who have completed the period of apprenticeship training in the establishment. The third respondent being under the control of the respondents 1 and 2, is bound to frame a policy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shighukha Burosgar Sangh and others reported in (1995) 2 SCC has laid down various guidelines in respect of considering the apprentice trainees for employment. Subsequently, the Supreme Court has also issued guidelines in Civil Appeal Nos.5285 to 5328 of 1996 dated 03.10.1996. Pursuant to this judgment, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.142 dated 10.11.1998 superseding earlier G.O.Ms.No. 1151 Labour and Employment dated 18.07.1979 read with Govt. Letter No. 35631 dated 06.12.1980, to the effect that apprentices acquiring training under the same Management need not be required to sit in the written test, but they are required to undergo only viva-voce test. The said G.O.Ms.No.142 has been adopted and accepted by the respondent Board and selections were made for all https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis technical posts as per the guidelines issued in the above Government Order till now. Subsequent to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.142 dated 10.11.1998, when Respondent Board insisted for written test, one K. Lal Robert filed W.P.No. 20730 of 2000 challenging the holding of written test for apprentices and this Court vide order dated 23.12.2004 allowed the Writ Petition by following G.O.Ms.No.142. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 25.02.2008 was issued in suppression of the earlier Government Orders and guidelines regarding fixation of ratio for sponsoring the candidates and to ensure expeditious filling up of vacancies. The above said Government Order deals only with sponsoring candidates from Employment Exchange in the ratio of 1:5. This Court has disposed of the batch of Writ Petitions by judgment dated 05.01.2015 in respect of the Respondent Board wherein, in paragraph No.3, G.O.Ms.No.142 dated 10.11.1998 has been considered and the respondent did not deny the fact that they are following G.O.Ms.No.142 and no written test was insisted for selection to technical posts.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that several writ petitions were filed before the Principal Bench and the Madurai Bench and the respondents have taken consistent stand that as per the amended provisions the policy decision is taken wherein the apprentice would be considered when other things being equal, preference shall be given to apprentices. However, they cannot be exempted from writing examination. The respondent produced the counter filed in W.P.(MD)No.1759 of 2016 wherein it is stated that TANGEDCO is following the TNEB Service Regulations. Under Regulation 89(5)(1) the selection shall be made on the results of written examination OR interview OR based on the performance in the qualifying examination prescribed for the respective post OR by awarding marks for the performance in the qualifying examination OR by combining any of the methods as considered suitable. Before taking a decision to recruit, a committee was constituted in CMD TANGEDCO Proceedings No.64, Administrative Branch dated 30.03.2015, wherein the committee considered the recruitment rules of TANGEDCO and the mode adopted by the TNPSC for the recruitment process for Highways Department, including the apprentice candidates in TNPSC notification i.e. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis “Provided that other things being equal, preference shall be given to those who have undergone one year Apprenticeship Training under the Government of India Scheme or the State Government Apprenticeship Scheme” and recommended that the posts by direct recruitment may be filled up by advertisement and also from employment exchange, that the marks obtained in competitive written examination for 85% and interview 15% and the selection be on merits, communal roster and when other things being equal preference would be given to apprentice. The training imparted for apprentice is social obligation in the interest of the society at large in terms of statutory mandate under the Apprentice Act, 1961 and there is no choice for respondent to deny training to the apprentices sponsored by the BOAT. The respondents ought to protection the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution to the candidates from open market. The amendment to the Apprentice Act came into effect from 05.12.2014. Subsequent to the amendment the respondents have considered the issue and has taken a policy decision in (Per) (FB) TANGEDCO Proceeding No.08 dated 31.08.2017. Based on the same the present recruitment process is followed and hence the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

(2) Other things being equal, apprentice will be given preference in appointment as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs U.P.Parivahan Nigam Shishukha (1995) 2 SCC 1 and clarified in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprentice Welfare Association and Another -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2000 LLR 869 (SC) = 2000 (3) SCR 1201, as has been followed hitherto followed. (3) Age relaxation will be allowed to the extent of the actual period of apprentice training undergone in the TNEB/ TANGEDCO/ TANTRANSCO.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Where the respondents have granted age relaxation to the apprentices and also stated that preference will be granted to the apprentices, if other things are being equal, then the respondents have already formulated a scheme as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same is implemented. Therefore, the petitioners cannot have any grievances. Moreover, the employer has every right to choose meritorious candidate and such policy decision to select meritorious candidate cannot be found fault with.