NARESH CHANDER Vs. HINDUSTAN INSECTISIDES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961 who have successfully completed three years training with Respondent M/s. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. They have undergone this training in the various designated trades for which they we're selected. They have also passed the examination conducted by the National Council for training vocational trades, Ministry of Labour, Government of India in April, 1979. They are awarded National Apprenticeship Certificate. The apprenticeship training was received by them in the Delhi-unit of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. M/s. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. are the Government company and are an instrumentality of State. The Delhi unit of the said company has framed recruitment and promotion rules for industrial workers. it is an admitted position that the training received by the petitioners is equivalent to the trade requirements of Grade III employees of the respondent company. Grade III employment includes the Operators, Electricians, Welders, Masons. Fitters, Painters, Mechanics etc. The grievance of the petitioners is that the recruitment rules of the respondent-company guarantee employment to the trained apprentices. The petitioners joined the apprentices training in 1976 and successfully completed it in 1979 but none of the trained apprentices has been appointed to Grade III posts or even considered for such an appointment. The petitioners pray for a mandamus for directing the respondent-company to appoint in them to the said Grade III posts in the respondent-company. The original Apprentices Act, namely, Act XIX of 1850 was passed for providing apprenticeship training to orphans and poor children. The Act was further amended in 1973 to extend the apprenticeship training facilities to Graduate Engineers and Diploma-holders. The training programmes are to be drawn in accordance with standards and syllabi drawn up by expert bodies.

(2.) From this history of the legislation it is clear that the need for skilled craftsman is a national need in the large scale industrial development under the Five Year Plans. The Plans are approved by the Parliament. The Parliament has, therefore, found it necessary to pass an appropriate legislation for that purpose. The Act establishes a National Council, State Councils, State Apprenticeship Councils, the All India Council for implementing the apprenticeship programmes. It also provides for the apprenticeship advisors at the Centre and State level. Section 8 of the Act provides inter alia for the powers to the Central Government to issue statutory notifications for determining the ratio of trade apprentices to workers in each designated trades. It is an admitted fact that in the present case the ratio was one apprentice for seven workers. The Act then lays down the obligations of the employer and the obligations of the apprentices in the efficient conduct of the training programme. Section 21 provides for the grant of certificate after holding test to apprentices after conclusion of the training. The Act does not oblige the employer or the apprentices to offer or to accept any employment after the conclusion of the training. Section 22 which provides for the offer and acceptance of employment reads :

(3.) The provisions of the Act and particularly Section 22 patently show that an employer is not bound to offer an employment to an apprentice after the training. Thus there is no statutory duty for the employer, nor a statutory right in the apprentice to get the employment. However, sub-section (2) of Section 22 makes an exception to the general rule. If the contract of apprenticeship entered under the Act between the apprentice and the employer provides that the apprentice shall serve the employer after the training, then it is the statutory duty of the employer to give suitable employment to the apprentice and it is the statutory duty of the apprentice to accept such employment. The counsel for the petitioners frankly admitted that the appreniceship contract entered into in the present case does not expressly state that the apprentice must serve the employer after training. Section 22 of the Act recently came for interpretation at the hands of the Supreme Court in Narinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, AIR 1985, S.C. 275 (1). The petitioners in that case had received apprentice training. They received a certificate of their completion of training from the Technical Training Institute, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. The petitioners claimed employment in the Punjab State Electricity Board. The apprenticeship contract provided : It should be clearly understood that you shall be on stipendiary training for a period of one year and on successful completion of this training, you shall be absorbed in the department if there are vacancies. . . . . ." The Supreme Court held that the State of Punjab was bound to offer employment to the petitioner. The court further held that the said term in the contract created reciprocal rights and obligations to the parties. The Supreme Court further held :