UNION OF INDIA Vs. REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the Union of india, represented by the Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Park Town, chennai-600 003 and the Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, madurai, against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 10. 1. 2001 in O. A. No. 807 of 1999, giving direction to the present petitioners to offer suitable employment to the present respondents 2 and 3.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition are required to be noticed in some detail. THE present Respondents 2 and 3 were selected for training as Apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961 and under letter dated 23. 4. 1991, they were directed to undergo Shed Floor Training in the open line establishment workshops for a period of 3 years. In the said letter, it has been stipulated that even on completion of training period, there was no guarantee for employment. THE respondents 2 and 3 had received some stipend during the said period and they were directed to undergo training as Fitter trade Apprentices in Carriage and Wagon Department. THE respondents 2 and 3, on completion of their Shed Floor Training in open line for 2 years, were directed to undergo Shop Floor Training from 20. 10. 1993 for one year in Golden Rock workshop at Tiruchirapalli. However, the workshop personnel re-directed the respondents 2 and 3 to Madurai Division, stating that they were required to undergo minimum period of 2 years training in Golden Rock workshop to cover the required 120 Related Instruction Classes. THEreafter, the training period of the respondents 2 and 3 was extended with stipend. At that stage, the respondents 2 and 3 filed O. A. No. 547 of 1994, challenging the order dated 23. 12. 1993, extending their training period and prayed that they should be absorbed as Fitter against 25% Direct Recruitment Quota. THE said O. A. , was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 8. 1. 1997. THE relevant portion of the order passed by the Tribunal is to the following effect:-

(3.) THE Tribunal, on consideration of the materials on record, came to hold that . . . the applicants (present Respondents 2 and 3) were selected for training as Apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961 in Central workshop, Southern Railway and allotted to Madurai Division for training, as per the terms of Workshop Personnel Officer/goc, Ponmalai, letter dated 23. 4. 1991. THEy were directed to undergo the Shed Floor Training in the Open line Establishment in Madurai Division and Shop Floor Training at Golden Rock workshop for a period of three years. THEy were given periodical training at basic Training Centre, Madurai during the month of May, 1992. On completion of the Shed Floor Training in Open Line for two years, the applicants were directed to go to Golden Rock Workshop to undergo Shop Floor Training from 20. 10. 1993 for one year. This was done since the applicants have to complete 120 related Instruction Classes (R. I.) for statutory obligation or 40 R. I. classes for a period of one year training. THE applicants therefore were directed to attend two years training in Golden Rock Workshop to cover the required 120 R. I. classes at the rate of 60 R. I. classes per year. THE same could not be done, since the applicants were directed to undergo training from madurai Division to Golden Rock Workshop from 20. 10. 1993. THErefore, the Chief personnel Officer, Madras, by his letter dated 16. 12. 1993, advised to extend their training period with full stipend creating an opportunity to make up the shortfall, the prescribed minimum period of R. I. classes and as such, the training period was extended by one year, by letter dated 23. 12. 1993. THEse applicants challenged the letter dated 23. 12. 1993 in the above cited O. A. . After the disposal of the earlier O. A. No. 547 of 1994, correspondences continued and the authority under the Apprentices Act informed the applicants that their names had not been registered. THE circumstances also show that there was failure on the part of the Railways in not taking necessary action and these applicants, from 1991 onwards, have been asked to move from pillar to post. THE Tribunal further observed: 20. When we put a question to the learned counsel for the Railways, the learned counsel submitted that he has no objection in granting the alternative relief asked for in the O. A. i. e. , to direct the respondents to register the applicants contracts under the Apprentices Act, 1961 with effect from 23. 4. 1991 and allow them to complete the training and qualify as Act Apprentices with due seniority as directed by this Tribunal in o. A. No. 547 of 1994. It is true that the applicants are asked for such a relief. But if the Tribunal is granting this relief that will not be in accordance with law. We have already extracted the relevant portion of Section 4. Only after a contract, the apprentice training can be go on. If it is so, then we must direct the respondents to enter into a contract now and ask the applicants to undergo a training for another three years. That means from 1991 to 2000, the entire time is wasted. THE chances of employment of the applicants will also be affected. We also cannot compel the third respondent to register the names of the applicants with effect from 23. 4. 1991, which will be against law. That means, the alternative relief cannot be granted by this Tribunal on the basis of the concession given by the learned counsel for the Railways. THE Tribunal further observed that it cannot also give a declaration that the applicants were deemed to have completed the training under the Apprentices Act. After coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal observed : 25. We have already stated that because of the negligence by the Railways, the applicants have not entered into a contract for apprentices nor their names could be registered with the respondent. But at the same time they have represented that they are apprentices under the Act and utilised their training against law for the last few years. In fact, in such cases the Railways are bound to pay exemplary damages to the applicants. But we cannot grant the same in this case. At the same time, we feel that it is a fit case wherein the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to offer suitable employment to the applicants and they also directed to take steps to move the Government if they feel that they have no power to appoint them in the 25% quota as provided under Rule 159 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. It is for the applicants to accept the employment or not. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusion, the O. A. , was allowed, with a further direction to give costs of Rs. 2,500/- each.