Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Subject: Recruitment of Ex-Trade Apprentices Dear Sir, Kindly recall the discussion held in Chairman's room on 3.1.1985 on the above subject.
Ex-Trade Apprentices were being recruited along with the died in harness candidates in the ratio of 1:1. This is now been stopped in view of the ban imposed by Government on direct recruitment. Ex-Trade Apprentices will be recruited again as and when the ban is lifted and their quota will be restored."

It is this letter that is mainly relied on by the High Court to hold that the Port Trust was bound by its promise to recruit the trained apprentices in the same ratio as dependents of employees dying in harness. The Solicitor General submitted that it is quite unreasonable to read this letter as an unqualified promise of recruitment of trained apprentices in all future times. The letter simply said the ex-trade apprentices would be recruited and their quota would be restored again as and when the ban on direct recruitment was lifted. He pointed out that in the order of the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust that came under challenge before the High Court it was likewise stated that the Trust was not in a position to provide employment opportunity to the trained apprentices on account of the twin problems of actuate financial distress and surplus workforce but as and when the need arises to induct unskilled labour in the Mechanical Engineering department the trained apprentices would also be considered for recruitment. There is thus no change in the stand of the Trust and there is no question of enforcement of any unconditional promise made by the Trust.

"Dear Sir, "Subject: Absorption of the Trade Apprentices under the S.R.C. (ex.C.H.E.'s Deptt.) Reference your letter No.C/8/645 dated the 16th June, 1986.
2. The case has been considered by the Chairman. It has been decided to resume recruitment or ex-Trade Apprentices, as per their quota against the available vacancies of U.S.L. subject to work requirement and on observance of SC/ST reservation orders. The General Manager (Ship Repair Complex) is being suitably advised in the matter."

24. Moreover, the letter does not answer the main question in the case, i.e., how could the High Court give direction for appointment of over three hundred trained apprentices regardless of the vacancy position and the other relevant considerations. Confronted with the question Mr. Krishnamani submitted that the order of the High Court should not be understood to mean that all the respondents must be appointed forthwith. The High Court asked the Trust to evolve a scheme for their absorption in a phased manner. When pointed out that if the directions of the High Court are to be understood in the way suggested by him then their will not be much difference between the High Court order and the order passed by the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust, Mr. Krishnamani submitted the vital difference between the two was that the order of the Chairman, Port Trust sought to do away with the parity between the two groups in the matter of recruitment. He further submitted that the respondents' main claim was to adhere to and restore the parity between the ex-trade apprentices and those covered by the scheme of compassionate appointments in the matter of recruitment. We are entirely unable to accept the claim of the respondents. As stated by the Solicitor General the ex-trade apprentices were at one time appointed in equal numbers to those appointed under the compassionate appointments scheme but the practice was not on the basis of any statutory provision or any agreement between the Trust and the workmen. We are equally unable to see any rational basis for such parity between the two groups. It might have served the interests of a certain group in the past and it may appear to the present respondents as a handy bargaining point but in the long term it will be fair neither to ex-trade apprentices nor to those coming under the scheme of compassionate appointments. There is no comprehensible connection between the two groups nor is there any rational basis for parity between the two in the matter of recruitment.