Surendra Kumar vs M/O Railways on 13 April, 2021
4. The Respondents No.3 and 4 (General Manager, West
Central Railway & Chief Personnel Officer) have also denied
the claims of the applicant stating that the Apprentice Act
has been enacted to regulate the training of the apprentices
in designated trade. There is no obligation to appoint or
absorb the trained apprentices. The only obligation is to
provide training. The reply cites decision of the Apex Court
in Chairman/MD Mahanadi Coalfields vs. Sadashiv
Behera & Another [2005 (1) SC SLJ 254] and the
judgment of this Bench of the Tribunal in Anil Kumar
Gupta and Ors. vs Union of India to support this claim.
Regarding the engagement of 33 apprentices and sending of
a further list of 153 course completed apprentices, the reply
gives details of a cases (then) pending in the Hon'ble High
Court (Civil Writ Nos 4272/2005, 4273/2005 and
4274/2005, in which the Hon'ble High Court by their order
dated 05.12.2007, had directed to terminate all the 370
apprentices.