Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

29. It is hence stated that since HPCL has formulated the aforesaid policy, which provides for preference to the Graduate Apprentice Trainee in its employment, there is no other obligation on part of HPCL under the Apprentices Act to grant any permanent employment to the petitioners of their absorption. Also, for this reason, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

901.WP3767_2018.DOC

30. On behalf of the Government of India, an affidavit of Chandrakant M. Diggewadi, Assistant Director is placed on record to contend that the petitioners were registered as Graduate Apprentices under the provisions of the Apprentices Act for the period of one year. It is stated that the apprentices have to undergo the training, as per the training programme chalked out by the establishment. That one year of apprenticeship training does not guarantee any job/appointment after completion of training. It is stated that as per Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act, 'Every employer shall formulate its own policy for recruiting any apprentice who has completed the period of apprenticeship training in the establishment." It is further stated that communication of Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India dated 6 May, 1997 did not state anything about the absorption after completing apprenticeship training of one year. It is further stated that on terms and conditions of the contract of Apprenticeship for Graduate/Technician apprentices, it is clearly mentioned that it shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer an employment to the apprentice on completion of the period of his apprenticeship training in the establishment.

901.WP3767_2018.DOC no such clause exists in the contract as entered between the petitioners and the HPCL On the contrary, the terms of apprenticeship specifically provide that it shall not be obligatory on the employer to offer employment.

60. In UP State Road Transport Corporation v. UP Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berojgar Sangh (supra), the issue before the Supreme Court concerned the directions issued by the Allahabad High Court granting preference in employment to trained apprentices in the light of certain government circulars and administrative instructions. In such context, the Supreme Court observed that, other things being equal, trained apprentices may be given preference over direct recruits, particularly having regard to the governmental circulars and policy considerations. However, the Court clarified that under Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act it was not obligatory on the part of the employer to offer employment to an apprentice on completion of training. The Court further held that there was no clear and unequivocal promise of automatic absorption and, therefore, the principle of promissory estoppel was not attracted. The observations were made in the peculiar factual background of that Corporation and the administrative framework governing it. Hence, this decision would not be applicable to the present case.