Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

d) Whether the guidelines issued by the Central Government dated 21.4.83 and the circular dated 15.10.96 conferred any enforceable legal right on the Trade Apprentices?

3. Mr. Joydeep Kar, learned Counsel of the appellants submits that the apprentices are creature of statute namely, the Apprentice Act, 1961 and the said Act since does not confer any legal right on the apprentices to seek employment in the organization where the said apprentices were trained. Mr. Kar further submits that the writ petitioners herein are not entitled to claim any relief against the appellants herein. Mr. Kar referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shiskhuks Berozgar Sangh and Ors. submits that the Trade Apprentices have no right to seek employment in the organization where they were trained. Mr. Kar submits that the trained Apprentices can only claim preference in the event vacancies are filled up by direct recruits and the said trained Apprentices are also not required to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange for coming to the zone of consideration while filling up the vacancies in the establishment in question and the age bar should also be lifted or discontinued.

1) Ministries will endeavour to ensure that 50% of the total semi-skilled and skilled categories of jobs would be filled in by direct recruitment in the establishments under them and this requirement should be ensured while finalizing agreement with Labour Unions in future. The present agreement, may, however, be allowed to run their course without modification.

(2) 50% of the direct recruitment vacancies may be filled by trained apprentices, first preference being given to the apprentices trained by the same establishment and thereafter to those trained by other establishments.

10. For a promise to be enforceable, the same has, however, to be clear and unequivocal. We do not read any such promise in the aforesaid three documents and we, therefore, hold that at the call of promissory estoppel, the direction in question could not have been given by the High Court. But then, we are left in no doubt that the Government of India did desire that preference should be given to the trained apprentices and it is because of this that the State Government stated in its letter No. 735/38-6-16(T)-79 dt. 12.11.79 that where such apprentices are available direct recruitment should not to be made. Indeed the Government of India in its letter dated 23.3.1983 even desired reservation of 50 percent vacancies for apprentice trainees.

However, without admitting the contents of Annexure- R, it is submitted that the same also speaks for giving preference to the Trade Apprentices in the matter of employment over direct recruits and there does not appear to be any conflict between the contents of the said document and the procedure being followed in the Calcutta Port Trust.

13. The appellants-Kolkata Port Trust authorities, in our opinion, cannot ignore its promises regarding recruitment of ex-trade Apprentices as specifically mentioned in the written communication dated 4th January, 1985 issued by the Labour Advisor of the said Kolkata Port Trust. Furthermore, the guidelines specifically mentioned in the circular dated 21st April, 1983 issued by the Ministry of Labour & Rehabilitation, Government of India are not only applicable in the present case but also binding on the appellants herein in view of Section 111 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.