Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(7) The counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in April, 1980 the Ministry of Labour, Government of India. had issued instructions to all the establishments where trainees under the Apprenticeship Act are trained that preference should be given to the framed apprentices in the matter of employment. The said instructions are annexed as Annexure 'G' with the petition. The grievance of the. petitioners is that in spite of the directives from the Ministry of Labour the respondent-company did not offer employment to any of the trained apprentices. The reading of the said annexure shows that the apprentices who are trained in various establishments were agitating before the Government of India for not offering them employment after successful completion of the training. In fact, it shows that they had also restarted to hunger strike in front of the labour Ministry. The said letter of Ministry of Labour has referred to the Prime Minister's directive for giving preference in matter of employment to trained apprentices. The letter states : "PRIME Minister feels that they have a valid point and there is no use of continuing the scheme if it does not lead to employment."

(10) What, would be the appropriate and just order on the facts of this case ? From the information furnished by the respondent-company we find that 44 appointments to Grade Iii posts were made from the unskilled workmen in preference to apprentices from May 1979 till October 1982. In terms of the recruitment rules all these vacancies should have been filled from the trained apprentices, assuming that the equal number was available. We have already held that the action of the respondent-company in not offering the employment to apprentices after their completion of training was arbitrary and illegal. If our finding is to be strictly implemented at least some of the 44 unskilled workmen might lose their jobs and the trained apprentices would have to be appointed in their place. But there is an equitable solution possible to this problem so as not to disturb the existing position. The respondent-company should consider and appoint equal number of apprentices to all the vacancies that have fallen vacant or created a new from October 1982 so as to make their number equal to that of the unskilled workmen who are appointed in their place. Till the time the number of apprentices appointed to Grade Iii is not equal to number of unskilled workmen promoted no further promotion of the unskilled workmen should be made. Thus if our judgment is made applicable prospectively from October 1982 and not from 1979 when the apprentices had become entitled to appointment without much disturbance in the existing position a just solution can be reached. After ratio of 50:50 in the grade Iii employment is reached between the apprentices and the unskilled workmen further appointments should be made strictly according to the 50 : 50 formula as the vacancies arise.