JUDGMENT

HANSARIA, J. :—The material resources of country are limited. Indeed this is so for every country. The resource crunch is, however, acute for us; and so whenever and wherever public money is invested , it has to be seen that there is a proper utilisation of the same in the sense that the public ultimately gets benefit of the same.

2. This prelude is to highlight the idea which we propose to focus as we proceed to bring home the need to make the investment in apprentice trainees useful to the society, which would be so when the training received by them is put to social use. We are putting this aspect of the matter at the forefront because one of the appellants namely, the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation,(here in after the Corporation), has made a grievance about some directions given by the Allahabad High Court to employ those who had received training in the workshop of the Corporation. The direction has been given mainly at the call of promissory estoppel which is not applicable according to the Corporation.We would agree with this stand of the Corporation; but then, another reason advanced for the direction is also spending of money on imparting the training to the apprentice, which aspect is relevant as already alluded, and which we propose to buttress further.

3. Before doing so, let the objects behind the enactment of Apprentices Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) and its main provisions along with what has been stated in the Apprenticeship Rules, 1991 (the Rules) be noted. The need for the Act was felt, as mentioned in the Statement of the Objects and Reasons, to ensure that the training of apprentices is streamlined in the backdrop of increasing demand for skilled craftsman in the wake of large scale industrial development of the country. The Act, therefore, proposed to provide for the regulation and control of training of apprentices. The amendment of the Act in 1973 by which training of graduate engineers and diploma holders was introduced was for "improving their employment potential" and to solve the immediate unemployment problem. The amendment in 1986 aimed to provide "on the job training" to the products of vocational streams so that adequate competence and skill required for various occupations are acquire leading to "suitable employment or self employment opportunities" in organised industries etc.

4. With the aforesaid object in forefront which the Act seeks to achieve through its various amendments, let the relevant important provisions be noted. Section 4 requires entering into as contract before an apprentice is permitted to undergo training. By the force of Rule 6(2) of the Rules, the Central Government has even specified a model contract. Section 7 deals with the termination of apprenticeship contract and Rule 8 has laid down the quantum of compensation to be paid in case of termination. Rule 5 even visualises reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes trainees. A reference to Rule 7 shows that the period of training extends up to four years in some cases; and as per Rule 11 the trade apprentices are required to be paid stipend varying from Rs. 290 to Rs. 700 per month. Rule 3 deals with the standard of education necessary for making a person eligible for being engaged as a trade apprentice and a glance of Schedules I and I-A shows that the minimum educational qualification required is matriculation or its equivalent or 10th Class under 10+2 system, which qualification in case of technician is even graduation.

5. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the training imparted is rather exhaustive and elaborate. Sufficient amount of money is also spent on the trainees by way of payment of stipend to them. What is more, there is an obligation on the employers to provide an apprentice with training in his trade in accordance with the provisions of the Act - Schedule V to the Rules containing details of the obligations; and the employer is also required to ensure that a persons possessing presc