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 Obligation to Employ Apprentices Post-Training: Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday dismissed a series of petitions seeking regular employment at National Fertilizers Limited for former apprentices. The Court, led by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal, held that there is no legal obligation for employers to offer employment to apprentices after the completion of their training, referencing Section 22 of the Apprenticeship Act 1961.

The consolidated petitions, filed by Dharam Pal and others, sought directions for their employment based on past apprenticeship and a precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1995. The petitioners, who completed their apprenticeship between 1999 and 2001, were contesting a 2018 job advertisement for which they did not meet the educational qualifications.

Justice Bansal, in his judgment, clarified, "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." This statement encapsulates the crux of the decision which impacts the interpretation of the Apprenticeship Act and the rights of apprentices post-training.

The Court observed a 17-year gap between the completion of the apprenticeship and the issuance of the job advertisement, noting the petitioners' failure to claim employment during this period. This was seen as an acquiescence to their release post-apprenticeship by the respondent organization. The judgment further emphasized that setting qualification criteria falls squarely within the discretion of the employer.

The petitions were dismissed on the grounds of lacking merit, with the Court stating, "The entire claim of the petitioners is based upon the judgment of the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation [case]. The Court has not held that in each and every case apprentice should be offered a job."

This ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving apprenticeship and employment, underlining the autonomy of organizations in setting employment standards and the non-mandatory nature of employing trained apprentices. However, the Court also noted that this does not inhibit National Fertilizers Limited from considering the petitioners for future employment if they meet the necessary qualifications.

Date of Decision: 09 January 2024

Dharam Pal and others  VS National Fertilizers Limited and another           

 

Latest Legal News