Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)
Shiwang Tripathi And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 3 June, 2022 cites

Narender Kumar And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 29 November, 1984

(ii) Mr. Batra then submits that the advertisement, pursuant whereto the petitioners were appointed by the respondent company, in itself made it clear that it was not obligatory on the company to absorb the apprentices upon completion of their apprenticeship training. He also contends that neither the appointment letter, nor the surety bond furnished by the petitioners, cast any such reciprocal obligations on the petitioners to serve the respondent company after the completion of their period of apprenticeship. He submits that the petitioners had exercised their own discretion in continuing with their apprenticeship training instead of looking for alternate career opportunities, even though this was specifically suggested in the communication issued by the Board on 04.02.2022, while granting the second and last extension to the petitioners. He, therefore, contends that not only was there no obligation on the respondents to absorb Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 6811/2022 Page 7 of 18 Digitally Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:03.06.2022 13:32:29 the petitioners, but there was also no clause in any of the documents, which in any manner curtailed the right of the petitioners to refuse the respondents‟ offer of absorption. Once there was no such clause either in the advertisement or in the appointment letter, the decisions in Narender Kumar (Supra) and Sanjay Kumar (Supra) relied upon by the petitioners, which contains a mandatory condition of absorption after the completion of the apprenticeship period, are wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 197 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

U.P. State Electricity Board vs Shri Shiv Mohan Singh And Anr on 1 October, 2004

(vi) By relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in The Employees State Insurance Corporation and Another. Vs. The TATA Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. and Another [(1975) 2 SCC 835], and in U.P. State Electricity Vs. Shiv Mohan Singh and Another [(2004) 8 SCC 402)], Mr. Batra finally submits that an apprentice can never be considered as employed for work of the company and as per the scheme of The Apprentices Act 1961, there is no obligation on an employer to offer employment to him/her, except when there is a specific condition contained Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 6811/2022 Page 9 of 18 Digitally Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:03.06.2022 13:32:29 in the contract to that effect. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 157 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

In support of this plea, the petitioners have heavily relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra). I am however, unable to agree. Once there was no obligation whatsoever on the respondents to absorb the petitioners, the mere fact that at one stage, the respondent company thought that it would be beneficial to absorb these apprentices, cannot be construed as any estoppel against the respondents from taking a plea that they do not now deem it appropriate at this stage to either absorb the apprentices, or to fill up the post of Administrative Officers (Scale I) through direct recruitment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1