PRAMOD KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in the above petition as also the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 1359/2000 (Rajesh Singh Banafar vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and three others, 1337/2000 (Rajesh Kumar Tripathi and three others vs. The South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and another., and 2159/2000 (Jitendra Singh and three others vs. Coal India Ltd. and three others) are trained Apprentices who have challenged the written examination conducted by respondent No. 1, pursuant to the advertisement Annexure -P/5 inviting applications for the post of Mining Sirdar, in which they have appeared and failed, on the ground that they being trained Apprentices could not have been subjected to any written examination for appointment in the vacancy of Mining Sirdar in view of the law settled by the Supreme Court in U.P.S.R.T. Corpn. vs. U.P. Parivahan N.S.B. Sangh, AIR 1995 SC 1115.

(2.) SINE the claim by the petitioners in the above petitions is being made on identical facts and grounds, reference is being made to the fact stated in W.P. No. 1331/2000.

(3.) THE Apprentices Act, 1961 was enacted to provide for regulation and control of training of apprentices and for matters connected therewith. As observed by the Supreme Court in U.P.S.R.T. Corporation's case, the object behind the enactment of the Act and the rules framed thereunder was to ensure that the training of the apprentices is streamlined in the backdrop of increasing demand for skilled craftsman in the wake of large scale industrial development of the Country. It has also been observed that the amendment of Act in 1973 by which training of graduate engineers and diploma holders was introduced was for "improving their employment potential" and to solve the immediate unemployment problem and the later amendment in 1986 was made to provide "on the job training" to the products of vocational streams so that adequate competence and skill required for various occupations are acquired leading to "suitable employment or self -employment opportunities" in organised industries etc. Learned counsel has submitted that Section 2(aa) of the Act defines "apprentice" as meaning a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship and the contract contemplated is required to be entered into in accordance with Section 4 of the Act which prohibits engagement of any person as an apprentice to undergo apprenticeship training in a designated trade unless such person has entered into a contract of apprenticeship with the employer. Learned counsel has referred to Section 3 of the Act to point out that only such persons are imparted training as possess the qualification laid down in Section 3 which includes such standards of education and physical fitness as may be prescribed. The contention of the learned counsel is that once a person successfully completes the training of apprenticeship, it carries with it the assurance that he possesses the requisite qualifications and has acquired sufficient proficiency in the trade concerned and, therefore, it is not permissible to subject him once again to any written examination to assess his suitability for appointment as Mining Sirdar or overman. Learned counsel has pointed out that the fact that the petitioners possess the diploma in Mining and Mines Surveying of the Board of Technical Education as also the certificate of having passed the first aid course and of Gas testing examination coupled with successful completion of apprenticeship by itself makes them entitled to appointment without being further subjected to any test or examination and the appointment should have been offered by the respondents under the provisions of Section 22 of the Act to the petitioners subject, however, to their entitlement between the trained apprentices.