Y R BARAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which arises for consideration in these two units is whether the apprenticeship training would be covered under Sec. 3(p)(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?

(2.) Brief facts are that the respondents issued a Notification dated 12th March, 2003 inviting applications for apprenticeship training. A stipend was to be paid to the apprentices who were selected. The petitioners were selected by the respondents for apprenticeship training and while they were undergoing training, a show-cause notice was issued to them in May, 2008 to show-cause as to why they may not be terminated from apprenticeship training in view of the office memos (1) This office Memorandum of even No. dated 12-3-2007 (2) Regional Director, R.D.A.T. Mumbai's letter No. RDATM/ 10007/App/2007-08-5791 dated 19-12-2007 (3) GM(E) C.C.G's. letter No. E (R and T)/120/10 Vol. XVIII dated 15-4-2008. The petitioners submitted their reply. The objection of the respondents was that the petitioners have not passed I.T.I. trade examination, and therefore, they were not eligible for apprenticeship training. The petitioners filed O.A. No. 187 of 2010 with M.A. No. 215 of 2010 and O.A. No. 188 of 2010 with M.A. No. 216 of 2010. Both the O.A. have been rejected by the Tribunal by judgment and order dated 29th June, 2010, wherein the Tribunal has held that apprenticeship training was imparted in compliance with the Apprentice Act. It is a different matter that after the training, the applicant may be absorbed by the respondents in service, but apprenticeship training could not be treated as a pre-condition for service or employment with the respondents, therefore, it held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the O.A. and dismissed the O.A. as barred by law.

(3.) We have heard Mr. M.S. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioners. He has vehemently urged that in view of the definition of sub-sec. (p) and (q) of Sec. 3 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, (for short "the Act") since the petitioners were selected for training, therefore, it will be deemed that they were selected for service in Railways after completion of the training, and therefore, their original applications filed before the Tribunal were maintainable. Learned Counsel further urged that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioners and they submitted their reply to the show-cause notice on 3rd June, 2008 stating therein that they would be completing I.T.I. trade course by joining evening classes and they may be permitted for completing I.T.I. training. Learned Counsel for the petitioners lastly urged that in view of the instructions of the Railway Board with regard to apprenticeship training filed as Annexure "C" to the petition, the petitioners could not be disengaged as it provided for engagement of non-I.T.I. candidates as well.