Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Jagdish Vyas And Ors. on 3 March, 1994
3. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar by Mr. Munshi and have gone through the record of the case. In this case, petitioner was employed as an apprentice, vide order Annexure 3 dated October 19, 1978. The admitted case of the parties before the Labour Tribunal as also learned Single Judge was that his period of employment as an apprentice was for one year. After the expiry of one year, no formal order extending the training period as apprentice was passed nor any formal order of appointment was accorded in favour of the respondents. Thus, he was continued in employment. Now, the sole question that arises for decision is whether he can be treated as a workman after the expiry of a period of apprenticeship or in spite of the fact that no formal order extending the period of apprenticeship has been passed he should be treated as an apprentice. Mr. Munshi in this respect relied on a decision of learned Single Judge rendered in the case of Abdul Aziz, (supra), quoted above. That was a case in which apprentice on completion of the period of training applied to the employer that his apprenticeship should be extended but no such extension was granted and then he filed a writ petition that he should be treated as a workman. In Annexure 3 there is clause No. 12 which clearly says that on successful completion of training the trainee may be appointed on a suitable post in the corporation in a regular scale of pay against existing vacancies or kept in a vacancy which may arise. The appointment will of course be as per rules. It is not a case of the appellants that no vacancy existed in the Corporation on completion of a training period. It is further not their case that the training was not completed successfully by the apprentice.