Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The respondents (Nos. 1 to 3) representing the employer in SECL have stated that so far as apprentice trainees are concerned, those who are trained in SECL are preferred to those who are trained elsewhere. It has been specifically averred in paragraph 5 of the return that "the local residents in accordance with the instructions of the State Government were being preferred".

6. In the course of hearing it was stated on behalf of the employer that they are maintaining a register of apprentice trainees. The counsel for the employer was directed to take instructions and publish the names of the trainees so maintained in the register. Since that direction made to the employer was not carried out, this Court on 5-3-1998 passed an order restraining the respondents from making further appointments until publication of a properly prepared seniority list of apprentice trainees and exhibiting the same on the notice board for the knowledge of all concerned. Since this Court was insistent on finding as to what actual policy of recruitment is being followed by the SECL, on 4-5-1998 this Court directed the employer to place on record the details of its policy and proposals, if any, in the matter of future employment. In the additional return submitted by the respondents it has been disclosed that for selecting suitable candidates it has appointed a selection committee consisting of the following members :

15. The last question raised on behalf of the petitioner also needs some discussion and decision. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the SECL is giving absolutely no regard to the petitioners who are fully qualified and are trained apprentices. It is submitted that the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1995 SC 1115, are being contumaciously disregarded by the management of SECL. In the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra), the Supreme Court had occasion to examine the object and intent of the Apprentices Act, 1961. The Supreme Court has duly taken note of Section 22 of the said Act of 1961 that it is not obligatory on the part of the employer to offer any employment to any apprentice, nor there is any corresponding obligation on the part of the apprentice to accept an employment under the employer with whom he had taken apprenticeship training. The Supreme Court, however, held that in order that the nation gets the benefit of time, money and energy spent on the trainees they should be preferred over non- trained direct recruits. It is thus for giving full effect to the provisions of the Act of 1961 that the Supreme Court laid down the guidelines with directions to the concerned employer to maintain a seniority list of trained apprentices and give them preference on the basis of that list. The relevant part of the directions and guidelines contained in the Supreme Court judgment in the U.P.S.R.T.C. case (supra) are under :

(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 person 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."

16. Having thus examined the legal position, the petitioners can be granted only such directions against the employer as would enable them to get due opportunity of employment as envisaged by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the two enactments i.e. the Acts of 1959 and 1961.