Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI. :- The appellants, 22 in number, who hold a three-year Diploma in Electrical Engineering Course from the State Board of Technical Education, Punjab, were appointed as apprentices in August 1981. The Principal, Technical Training Institute, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, who is respondent 3 herein, issued the requisite certificates to the petitioners on successful completion by them of one years apprenticeship. After obtaining those certificates, the appellants registered their names with the, Employment Exchanges in Punjab. The Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation, Department of Labour (D.G.E.T.), Government of India, New Delhi, issued instructions to various offices including the Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, respondent 2 herein, asking that necessary action should be taken to ensure that the trained apprentices are absorbed in industries up to a minimum of 50 per cent of direct recruitment vacancies. These instructions were notified on March 23, 1983. On July 27, 1983, respondent 2 advertised 50 posts of Junior Engineers-II (Electrical) in its establishment, for which the petitioners had successfully completed a one-year apprenticeship.

2. The appellants filed a writ petition (No. 4839 of 1983) in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, challenging the issuance of the advertisement on the ground that, under their respective letters of appointment, they were entitled to be appointed to 50 per cent of the posts which were advertised by respondent 2. That writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the letters of appointment issued to the appellants did not contain any assurance or undertaking that they will be absorbed in the service of the Punjab State Electricity Board; that 47 per cent of the vacancies were already reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, backward classes, ex-service men, etc.; and that, if another 50 per cent of the posts were to be reserved for apprenticeship trainees, almost 100 per cent posts shall have been put in the reserved category which would be contrary to law. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court.

3. Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act, 52 of 1961, provides that 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 nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to accept an employment under the employer. This provision is, however, subject to the non obstante clause in sub-section (2) of Section 22 which reads as follows :-

"Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), where there is a condition in a contract of apprenticeship that the apprentice shall, after the successful completion of the apprenticeship training, serve the employer, the employer shall, on such completion, be bound to offer suitable employment to the apprentice, and the apprentice shall be bound to serve the employer in that capacity for such period and on such remuneration as may be specified in the contract."

(The proviso to this sub-section is not relevant for our purpose).

4. This sub-section leaves no doubt that, despite the provision contained in sub-section (1) the employer is under an obligation to suitable employment to the apprentice if the contract of apprenticeship contains, a condition that the apprentice shall serve the employer after the successful completion of the training. Indeed, when such an offer is made, the apprentice on his part is bound to serve the employer in the capacity in which he was working as an apprentice.

5. The question which therefore, arises for consideration is whether there is a condition in the contract of apprenticeship of the appellants that they shall serve the employer after the successful completion of their apprenticeship, training. In this behalf, paragraph 2 of the letters of appointment under which the appellants were appointed as app