Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. In the background of what has been noted above, we state that the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful completion of their training:
(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. N. Hargopal1 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 service rule concerned. 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 training institute concerned would maintain a list of the persons trained yearwise. The persons 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."

10. Subsequently, in 2007(5) MLJ 862 (G. RAVIKUMAR v. CHAIRMAN AND D.G.O.F., ORDNANCE FACTORY BOARD, KOLKATTA AND OTHERS) , the learned single Judge by referring to the above two decisions of the Supreme Court had occasion to observe as follows:-

"7. The issue decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court both in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board's case (supra) arose out of the situation where Section 22(1) will come into operation and where there is no guarantee for any employment. If there is a guarantee for employment after the training period, then certainly to the exclusion of any outsider, the trained apprentices can be preferred. ..."

11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has placed particular reliance upon the decision reported in (2005) 2 SCC 396 = 2005(1) LLJ 870 (CHAIRMAN/M.D., MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS v. SADASHIP BEHERA AND OTHERS), wherein it was observed :-

It is obvious that the Division Bench proceeded on the footing that Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act was applicable rather than Section 22(2) and on that basis the Division Bench concluded that the names of the eligible candidates should be called for from the Employment Exchange, an advertisement should be published in the newspaper and other things being equal, the apprentices shall be given preference as envisaged under Section 22(1).

13. In view of the above decisions regarding the scope of Section 22 of the Apprentices Act, 1957, the law is now well settled that in the absence of any special contract, the provisions of Section 22(1) would be applicable which means that even if a person has completed the apprenticeship training under a particular organisation, he has got no right to claim employment. However, as and when the selection takes place, he is entitled to get a preference, other things being equal. On the other hand, if there is a contract, Section 22(2) would be applicable and the person who has completed apprenticeship training under a particular organisation has right to be employed if and when the vacancy arises and similarly he has also a corresponding obligation to join if and when the organisation calls upon such apprentices to join.