REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA Appellant

V/S

BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ARVIND GAUTAM V. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
M/S. LAXMI RATTAN COTTON MILLS LTD. V. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA V. HARGOPAL [REFERRED TO]
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. UTTAR PRADESH PARIVAHAN NIGAM SHISHUKHS BEROZGA SANGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
U P RAJYA VIDYUT PARISHAD APPRENTICE WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
LALIT MOHAN PANDEY VS. POORAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ANAND BUTTONS LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
KASTHA NIWARAK G S S MARYADIT INDORE VS. PRESIDENT INDORE DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
POST MASTER GENERAL KOLKATA VS. TUTU DAS [REFERRED TO]
VINEET KUMAR CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. GURMALI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. ASTAMIJA DASH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. UPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL VS. ALOK SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR TRIPATHI VS. U P POWER CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
GHULAM RASOOL LONE VS. STATE OF J AND K [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. RAMESH CHANDRA BAJPAI [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI SPORTS CLUB VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BHOODEV SINGH VS. CHAIRMAN UTTAR PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [REFERRED TO]
SHIV RAJ SINGH YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH DHAR DWIVEDI VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri I.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner has completed Apprenticeship training. For regular appointment the respondent-Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "BHEL"), a Government of India undertaking, though proceeded to appoint apprentices, junior to petitioner, but petitioner was not called for interview and has not been appointed. It is contended that petitioner has a right in equity and otherwise and, therefore, non-appointment of petitioner is wholly illegal. It is further submitted that in equity or under the Rules, either way, petitioner, has a matter of right, was/is entitled to be appointed on a regular technical post in Electronic Trade having completed apprenticeship training.

(3.) The submission is thoroughly misconceived. I find that it is based on directions issued by Apex Court in UPSRTC Employees Federation vs. UPSRTC, 1995 2 JT 26 wherein the Court laid down four conditions which have to be observed by an employer in respect to apprentices who had undergone apprenticeship training:

Click here to view full judgment.

YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address