Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad 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