Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta 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           

 

Similar News