Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

No Mandatory Employment Post-Apprenticeship: Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal verdict, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled against the mandatory employment of apprentices after their apprenticeship period, under Section 22 of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal on November 21, 2023, has far-reaching implications for apprenticeship programs and the rights of apprentices seeking employment.

The court’s decision stemmed from a series of cases where individuals who had completed their apprenticeship training sought employment with their respective employers. The petitioners argued that, based on their apprenticeship, they should be granted employment as per the Apprenticeship Act.

However, the court firmly held that there is no obligatory requirement on the part of the employer to offer employment to apprentices after the completion of their apprenticeship training. Quoting Section 22 of the Apprenticeship Act, the judgment stated, “It shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer any employment to any apprentice who has completed the period of his apprenticeship training in his establishment.”

Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of timely legal action, highlighting that the petitioners had waited for approximately 13 years before seeking a legal remedy. In line with previous legal precedents, the court cited cases such as Eastern Coalfields Ltd. V. Dugal Kumar, stating that “Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ is indeed an adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in favor of the applicant.”

The ruling reaffirms the principle that the courts may take into account delay and laches when considering petitions, even in cases involving alleged violations of fundamental rights. The judgment quoted the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu case, emphasizing that “delay comes in the way of equity” and that petitioners should approach the court promptly.

In conclusion, the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision clarifies the legal obligations of employers regarding apprenticeship programs and underscores the importance of timely legal action when seeking remedies. This judgment serves as a precedent for future cases involving apprenticeship rights and obligations, providing clarity on the legal framework surrounding apprenticeship employment.

Date of Decision 21.11.2023

KAMALJIT SINGH  VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Latest Legal News