Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Mr. R. Viduthalai, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 5 to 7 submitted that the petitioner is not a party to the settlement. In such circumstances, he cannot seek for quashing the settlement, which is arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The scope of the Apprentices Act, 1961 has been considered by the Supreme Court and when everything was equal between the candidates, then only apprentice trainees are entitled to preference as held by the Supreme Court. The petitioner association cannot have any legal right to have the settlement arrived at between the trade unions of N.L.C and the Management of N.L.C. before the statutory authorities set aside.

"(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. Hargopal would permit this.

(3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same could 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 year-wise. 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 seniors."

9. In the Civil Appeal referred above, the Supreme Court has categorically held as follows:

"We are of the view that this Court has clearly laid down that the Apprentices/Trainees shall have to go through the process of selection provided under the Service Regulations/Rules.

The apprentice have no right to be appointed in preference to the other applicant."

So, the plank of contention that 50 percent of the vacancies has to be reserved for the persons, who underwent the apprenticeship training in the N.L.C. cannot have any legs to stand. It is well settled that there is always an underlying assumption that a settlement reached with the help of Conciliation Officer must be fair and reasonable and could therefore safely be made binding not only on the workmen belonging to the Unions signing the settlement, but also on others. The above position of law has been declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Barauni Refineries Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Ors., 1991 (1) LLJ 46 (SC), and the above said case has bean referred to with approval in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in I.T.C. Limited Workers Welfare Association and Anr. v. The Management of I.T.C. Limited, . It is apposite to extract the relevant portion of the said judgment, which reads as follows: