KURIAKOSE Vs. COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was selected as an apprentice in the Cochin Shipyard Ltd. (first respondent) in the trade Mechanical (Diesel) for a period of two years as per agreement duly executed. The contract was terminated as per Ext. P1 order at the expiry of the term of the contract. Under Ext. P1 apprentices were advised to register their names in the Employment Exchange so that their cases could be considered for appointment against future vacancies in the Company. Petitioner completed his training in November, 1981. Among the apprentices in bis batch, seven persons including petitioner were not absorbed permanently in the Shipyard. It appears, apprentices who completed training in the subsequent batches (respondents 3 to 5) were absorbed under Ext. P2 order. Petitioner has therefore filed this original petition seeking to quash Ext. P2 in so far as it relates to respondents 3 to 5, seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing further appointments without reference to Employment Exchange and to absorb petitioner consistent with his qualifications and training in the trade.

(2.) Petitioner was trained in the sixth batch of apprentices in the trade Mechanical (Diesel). Respondents 3 to 5 appointed under Ext. P2 as Fitters Structural Gr. I were trained in the eighth batch. This job falls within the category of Mechanical (Diesel). According to petitioner, appointment given to respondents 3 to 5 overlooking bis prior claim amounts to hostile discrimination violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Though in the original petition reliance has not been placed by the petitioner on the provisions of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act'), learned counsel for the petitioner at the stage of arguments placed reliance on the same.

(3.) Petitioner has not made out his right to compel first respondent offer him appointment. His claim, such as it is, could only be on the basis that he was an apprentice trained under the first respondent in the sixth batch between 1979 and 1981. That was governed by a contract of apprenticeship. The contract did not confer on him any right to employment. On the other hand, the contract, as the counter affidavit would show, clearly stated that it shall not be obligatory for the employer to offer employment to the petitioner after completion of the period of apprenticeship and it shall not be obligatory on the part of the apprentice also to accept employment under the employer. This part of the contract is consistent with the provisions of the Apprentices-Act, 1961. Petitioner was appointed apprentice by virtue of the provisions of this Act. It is necessary only to refer to S.22 of this Act. Sub-s.(1) of S.22 states that it shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer any employment to any apprentice who has completed the period of his apprenticeship training in his establishment, nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to accept an employment under the employer. Sub-sec. (2) states that notwithstanding anything in sub-sec. (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.