Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In the instant matters, according to the respondents there was no condition in contract of apprenticeship that appointment shall be given to the petitioners after successful completion of their apprenticeship training. Counsel for the petitioners utterly failed to point out any such conditions in the contract of apprenticeship. The petitioners, therefore, are having no vested right to be employed mandatorily with the respondent companies on successful completion of apprenticeship. The circulars referred by the petitioners issued by the Government of Rajasthan and by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India prescribe only for extending a preference to the apprentices while making direct recruitment against the existing vacancies and a preference shall be given to the petitioners while making appointments, vis-a-vis the persons having equal merit.

"(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 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."

Hon'ble Supreme Court as a matter of fact in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra) held that in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act of 1961 it is not obligatory on part of the employer to offer any employment to any apprentice who has completed the period of apprenticeship in the establishment unless there be a condition in contract to the contrary. The directions given as referred above relate to the mode for grant of preference and that preference in no manner can be interpreted as a mandatory appointment to the apprentices with the establishment where they are undergoing the training. The respondent companies are giving preference to the petitioners vis-a-vis the other persons on other things being equal. No grievance is raised by the petitioners regarding the age limit or any discrepancy in maintenance of seniority among the apprentices. Thus, it can be safely said that the respondent companies are adhering the points of attraction noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra).