NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

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