ANJALI SIVADAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering. She got registered in Supervisory Development Centre Department of Technical Education, Kalamassery, in order to undergo apprenticeship. Petitioner applied to four companies for securing engagement as apprentice trainee. Petitioner was issued with a call letter by the 2nd respondent, viz., Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., [shortly called 'KAICO'], at its Ambalapuzha branch. According to the petitioner, after selecting the applicant, the concerned company has to enter an agreement with National Apprentice Training Scheme for one year. The nature of the work is in respect to brokerage, buying and selling of agricultural equipments. However, petitioner's interest and scope for higher education is in ship maintenance technology. Petitioner received another call letter from the 3rd respondent, concerning ship maintenance.

(2.) Accordingly, petitioner attended the interview and got 1st rank and joined in Shipyard as apprentice trainee in ship maintenance. Thereupon, petitioner sent resignation letter to the 2nd respondent. Though the resignation was accepted, the National Apprentice Training Scheme (NATS) did not accept the same for the reason that, as per the Apprentices Act, 1961, a candidate is entitled to do apprenticeship only once, and further that, transfer from one establishment to another is not possible, just against the provision of Sec.7 of Chapter-II of Apprentices Act, 1961. According to the petitioner, if NATS is not giving the approval, petitioner will not get the certificate and stipend from the NATS. It is also stated that, since the petitioner is relieved and joined the Shipyard, petitioner is entitled to carry on the apprenticeship with the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P4 call letter. It is also contended by the petitioner that, pursuant to Ext.P4, entry passes are issued to the petitioner and petitioner has worked.

(3.) First respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner, basically relying upon various provisions of Apprentices Act, 1961. It is the case of the 1st respondent that, in order to apply Sec.5 for novation of the apprenticeship agreement, there are certain formalities to be undertaken by the petitioner as well as the employer. Such an exercise is not undertaken, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to join in any other establishment as an apprentice. Other contentions are also raised.