Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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