UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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