Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants are as follows:

The Applicants successfully completed their Apprenticeship Training at the Integral Coach Factory (ICF), Chennai, across various trades during the period from 1999 to 2007. They are seeking appointment to any suitable position within ICF, Chennai. The Railway Board has already issued directions that Act Apprentices may be engaged as substitutes in Group D categories. Furthermore, a Petitions Committee of the Central Government, chaired by Shri Basudev Acharya, empowered the concerned General Managers to appoint Act Apprentices accordingly. In line with these directives, approximately 2,200 Act Apprentices, including around 1,000 from ICF, were appointed during the period 2005 to 2009. Subsequently, ICF, Chennai ceased to appoint course-completed Act Apprentices. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that trained apprentices are to be given preference over direct recruits. However, the 1st Respondent/Railway Board, in alignment with the 2nd Respondent/ICF, has failed to extend such preference to the Applicants, amounting to discriminatory treatment. While all other Railway Zones, production units, and workshops continue to engage their respective Act Apprentices in Group D categories, the 2nd Respondent/ICF has not adhered to the prevailing guidelines and has denied appointment to the Applicants. The Applicants have now endured over 14 years of hardship due to this inaction. They had earlier filed OA No. 310 of 2014 before this Tribunal, seeking a direction to the 2nd Respondent to appoint them. On 02.06.2014, this Tribunal directed the 2nd Respondent to consider their representation and communicate the outcome. To the Applicants' shock and dismay, their claim was subsequently rejected by the 2nd Respondent through an order dated 16.07.2014. The Applicants now approach this Tribunal once again, challenging the said rejection/impugned order.

4. The counsel further submits that in 2009, an Act Apprentice named M. Hemalatha was appointed on 21.01.2010 along with 309 others. Subsequently, ICF authorities claimed that the appointments had been stayed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 8821 of 2007. It is therefore unclear how the said individual was permitted to join duty, reportedly as a late appointee, despite the stay being in force.

5. It is further argued that ICF, Perambur, being a unit of Indian Railways, is bound by the Railway Board's directions. Pursuant to the 2004 Railway Board orders, appointments of Act Apprentices were made across various Railway Zones from 2005 to 2009. This clearly indicates that the Railway Board's orders were intended to be uniformly implemented across all Zones. In this context, the statement in the impugned order that the 2nd Respondent is unaware of the practices in other Railway Zones regarding the engagement of Act Apprentices is both surprising and inconsistent. Moreover, it is inexplicable how ICF was able to extend willingness for appointments in other zones such as SCR, SWR, NR, NCR, and DLW from 2010 to 2012 to candidates who had completed their Act Apprentice training at ICF.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that, while the impugned order asserts there is no mandatory right to employment for Act Apprentices, it fails to clarify how appointments were nonetheless made in ICF during the period from 2005 to 2009. Notably, it remains unexplained how ICF trainees secured appointments in other zones such as SCR and DLW during this period. He also pointed out that although the impugned order reiterates there is no job guarantee under the Apprentices Act, the 2nd Respondent overlooked the fact that approximately 22,000 appointments were made across Indian Railways between 2005 and 2013. This figure includes about 1,000 Act Apprentices appointed specifically in ICF. Thus, the assertion that there is no obligation to offer employment under the Act appears inconsistent with the actual appointments made.

9. Further, the counsel pointed out that in light of policy declarations made by the Hon'ble Minister for Railways and in accordance with instructions issued by the Ministry of Railways, a structured recruitment mechanism was put in place for filling Group 'D' posts across Indian Railways. As part of this policy, Railway Recruitment Cells (RRCs) were established to carry out open market recruitment. Specifically, RRC Chennai was formed during the year 2005-06 with the exclusive mandate to recruit candidates for Group 'D' positions in Southern Railway and the Integral Coach Factory (ICF). Thus, appointments for such posts are to be made through these open recruitment channels rather than through automatic absorption of Act Apprentices. There is no exigency to appoint course completed act apprentices trained in the Railways as substitutes against Group 'D' posts as an interim measure under GM's powers in terms of Railway Board's letter, dated 21.06.2004 (Annexure R-1)