Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Hargopal, AIR 1987 SC 1127 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 concerned service rule. 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 concerned training institute 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.

19. It is also observed by the Honourable Supreme Court that it would not be just and proper to go merely by what has been stated in Section 22(1) of the Act, or for that matter, in the model contract form. What is indeed required is to see that the nation gets the benefit of time, money and energy spent on the trainees, which would be so when they are employed in preference to non-trained direct recruits. Since there is unequivocal assurance to this Court that spirit and design of the directions of the aforesaid decision shall be strictly observed by the respondent-Board, no further discussion and directions would become necessary.