LAWS(P&H)-2000-10-30

AMANDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On October 10, 2000
AMANDEEP SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner after passing his Matriculation Examination joined the Industrial Training Institute, Batala, where he successfully completed the training in the trade of Electrical in July, 1995 and was awarded the National Trade Certificate by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, National Council for Vocational Training. Thereafter the Principal Technical Training Institute, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala; vide letter dated February 26, 1997 sponsored the name of the petitioner to the Superintending Engineer, Sub-urban Circle, Amritsar (Respondent No. 4) for undergoing apprenticeship training for two years in the designated trade of Lineman. For this purpose, Respondent No. 4 assigned the petitioner to the Sub-Divisional Officer. Punjab State Electricity Board, Tangra, Amritsar, (Respondent No. 6) with whom the petitioner joined on April 4, 1997. The petitioner submitted his formal joining report and also executed the model contract of apprenticeship training required for undergoing the training. The contract and other necessary certificates pertaining to the petitioner were obtained by Respondent No. 6 and were forwarded to the Senior Executive Engineer. Punjab State Electricity Board Jandiala Guru (Respondent No. 5) vide letter dated April 4, 1997 for further action. The petitioner completed two years training from April 4, 1997 to April 3, 1999 and thereafter had to appear in me All India Trade Test (for short 'AITT) to be conducted by the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Chandigarh. In order to appear in this test, it is a condition precedent that the apprenticeship training contract of the petitioner must be registered with the Director, Technical Education and Industrial Training Department, Punjab, (Respondent No. 2). However, the Respondent No. 3 vide letter dated May 6, 1999 (Annexure P-7) informed the petitioner that in view of the letter dated April 23, 1999 (Annexure P-6) sent to him by Respondent No. 2, his apprenticeship contract had been terminated due to the delay in submission of the same to Respondent No. 2. A copy of the letter dated April 23, 1999 (Annexure P-6) was also sent to the petitioner in which it had been stated that the apprenticeship contract of the petitioner could not be registered as it was received after the period of training of the contract had expired. However, as per the Apprenticeship Rules 1991, the Respondent No. 6, being the "employer", was required to send the apprenticeship contract to the Assistant Apprenticeship Advisor, Dayanand Industrial Training Institute, Amritsar (Respondent No. 3) for registration within three months from the date on which it is signed. It is in the background of these facts that the present petition has been filed against the letters dated April 23, 1999 (Annexure P-6) and dated May 6, 1999 (Annexure P-7) issued by Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 respectively.

(2.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that he had fulfilled all the formalities at the time of joining on April 4, 1997 and had not only executed the apprenticeship contract, but had also submitted the relevant certificates to Respondent No. 6 and as such if there is any delay in forwarding the same to Respondent No. 2, he cannot be made to suffer.

(3.) Notice of motion was issued to the Respondents, who have filed written statements in response to the same. While issuing notice of motion, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the AITT at his own risk and responsibility. As far as Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned they have taken the stand that as per Rule 6 of the Apprenticeship Rules 1991, the apprenticeship contract had to be sent to the Assistant Apprenticeship Advisor within three months from the date on which it was signed. According to them, not only the contract signed by the petitioner had not been received within the stipulated period of three months, but was received after the expiry of training period. It was, therefore, pleaded that they were justified in not registering the same.