Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iii) 2006 (8) SCC 111 [Arun Kumar Nayak v. Union of India and others]
(iv) 2006 AIR SCW 1991 [Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others] By placing reliance upon the above judgments, the learned counsel appearing for the Management wanted to argue that appointment in Public Sector can be made only on regular basis and in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. There cannot be a back door entry.

8. Further, he also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (to which myself is a party) reported in 2007 (3) C.T.C. 161 [K.Venkadesan v. Chairman - cum - Managing Director, Neyveli Lignite Corporation and others] to state that the apprentices cannot be given preference and apprentices having NTC under the 1961 Act can only be considered along with the others.

10. He also submitted that this Court in its decision reported in 2007 (5) M.L.J. 862 [G.Ravikumar v. Chairman and D.G.O.F., Ordinance Factory Board and others] vide order dated 22.6.2007 dealt with similar issue and the same should be followed in the present case also. Paragraphs 5 to 10 of the said order may be usefully extracted below:

Para 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."

Para 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: