Accused Loses Right To Default Bail By Acquiescence If Extension Orders Are Challenged Only After Chargesheet Filing: Supreme Court AP High Court Orders Release Of Vehicle Seized For Mineral Transport Violations Upon Payment Of Penalty, Says Rules Don't Mandate Indefinite Detention Short Time Gap Between 'Last Seen' And Death Clinches Murder Conviction Against Fired Driver: Allahabad High Court Court Must Restore Possession To Dispossessed Party If Ex-Parte Decree Is Set Aside Even If Property Descriptions Differ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Management Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay If It Failed To Maintain Service Records: Calcutta High Court Long Possession Alone Does Not Establish Tenancy; Burden Of Proof Lies On Person Claiming Status Of Tenant: Bombay High Court Consent Of Minor Immaterial: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction But Acquits Man Of Kidnapping Charges Notional Income Of Minor In Motor Accident Claims Must Be Based On Minimum Wages Of Skilled Workmen: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹56.8 Lakhs Revenue Records Serve Only Fiscal Purpose, Cannot Be Treated As Proof Of Title To Property: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Grant 'Deemed Extension' Of Time For Deposit In Specific Performance Decree: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Becomes Inexecutable If Balance Sale Consideration Not Deposited Within Stipulated Time: Supreme Court Supreme Court Protects MSMEs From Closure Over Missing Environmental Clearance If Pollution Boards Were Unaware Of Requirement Industrial Units Operating With Valid PCB Consents Can't Be Closed Merely For Technical Want Of Prior Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Punishment On Charge Not Framed In Show Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Doctor's Penalty To Censure Plea Of Acquiescence Cannot Defeat Lawful Title Claim When Encroachment Is Established: Madras High Court Board Of Revenue Can't Quash Unchallenged Orders While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Penetration To Any Extent Sufficient For Offence Under POCSO Act; Intact Hymen No Bar For Conviction: Meghalaya High Court Expeditious Conclusion Of Summary Force Court Trial Not Arbitrary If Procedure Followed; ITBPF Act Self-Contained: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Doesn't Bar Appeal Filed Prior To Withdrawal Of Earlier Defective Appeal Against Same Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Appointment Of Receiver Is An 'Extreme Remedy', Cannot Be Ordered Lightly Especially After Decades Of Inaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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