Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The petitioner had got his name registered in the Employment Exchange as a skilled worker. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, Central Ordnance Factory, Ministry of Defence, are not calling the candidates from the Employment Exchange while making appointments. But they are giving preference in employment to the Trade Apprentice, who are trained by them. Therefore, the petitioner prays for a direction from this Court to the respondents that for future vacancies candidates must be called for from the Employment Exchange and appointments to be made as per the list.

7. For the reasons brought out above that in the matter of appointment of Skilled Tradesmen in the factory, apprentices already trained by the factory only can be given preference and only when apprentices trained by the factory are not available, notification will be made to the Employment Exchange..."

4. In a sense, the stand of the respondents are that there is a guarantee of employment for the apprentices trained by the factory as they are well trained to the work of the factory and the outsiders like petitioner cannot seek to disturb the present arrangement in the absence of any illegality or irregularity.

5. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents, the learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in K.Venkadesan v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Neyveli Lignite Corporation and others [2007 (3) CTC 161] (to which I am a party), held after referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and another v. U.P.Parivathan Nigam Shighukha Burosgar Santh and others 1995 (2) SCC 1, and further judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Civil Appeal Nos.5285 to 5328 of 1996 dated 3.10.1996 Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. P.Arul and others, that Apprentices/Trainees shall have to go through the process of selection provided under the Service Regulations/Rules. Keeping in view the fact that the Apprentices acquire training under the same management, they are not required to sit in the written test. A trained Apprentice will have a preference over the direct recruitment if other things are being equal.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), where there is a condition in a contract of apprenticeship that the apprentice shall, after the successful completion of the apprenticeship training, serve the employer, the employer shall, on such completion, be bound to offer suitable employment to the apprentice, and the apprentice shall be bound to serve the employer in that capacity for such period and on such remuneration as may be specified in the contract."

7. The issue decided by the Honb'le Supreme Court both in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board's (case cited) 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. Therefore, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narender Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others [(1985) 1 Supreme Court Cases 130] wherein, it has been held in paragraph No.9 as follows: