SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 16

Supreme Court of India
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited & Others - Appellants
Versus
Harkesh Chand & Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29987 of 2010)
Decided On : 07-01-2013

IMPORTANT POINT
Apprenticeship training period - whether can be counted as service period?

Headnote:Apprentices Act, 1961-Sections 18, 20 and 22-Apprentices are trainees and not workers-Nature and character of apprentice is that of a trainee only and on expiry of training, there is no corresponding obligation on part of employer to employ him-An apprentice does not have statutory right to claim appointment and employer is not under any statutory obligation to give him employment-However, if terms of contract of apprenticeship lay down condition that on successful completion of apprenticeship employer would offer him employment, then it is obligatory on his part to do so-In absence of such condition, there is no obligation-It depends on terms of contract. (Paras 21, 23 and 27)

       (2004)8 SCC 402; AIR 1985 SC 275; (2005)2 SCC 470-Relied.

       (2004)8 SCC 387-Referred.

       

Judgment :-

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th July, 2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 865 of 2010 whereby the Division Bench concurred with the view expressed by the learned single Judge in CWP No. 1383 of 2009 whereunder the respondents were held entitled for grant of Assured Career Progression Scale (for short “the ACP Scale”) on completion of ten years of service which included training as apprentice.

3. The facts as have been undraped are that the three respondents invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court claiming the benefit of the second ACP Scale on completion of twenty years of service on the base that their period of training as apprentice had to be taken into consideration. Such a claim was founded on the assertion that they had joined as trainees between 17.4.1987 to 30.4.1987 and were subsequently absorbed and brought into the cadre. On completion of ten years from the date they entered the service as trainees, the first ACP Scale was granted to them. However, when conferring of the benefit of the second ACP Scale arose, the same was not extended to them. The said action of the employer compelled them to knock at the doors of the High Court and during the pendency of the writ petition, by proceeding dated 23.4.2009, the benefits conferred under the first ACP Scale was withdrawn referring to a notification issued on 11.3.1990 which stipulated in clause (4) that the trainees referred to therein would be entitled to increment only on successful completion of their training and in case of Plant Attendant Grade-II and Technician Grade-II, increment on successful completion of training would be granted but without arrears. Though the writ petition was confined to grant of the second ACP Scale, yet the learned single Judge required the counsel for both the sides to address about the justifiability of withdrawal of the benefit of the first ACP Scale and decided both the facets. The said exercise was undertaken by the learned single Judge as the primal issue in respect of both the ACP Scales rested on the question whether the period spent during training could be counted towards regular satisfactory service or not.

4. It is not in dispute that the respondents were appointed as Apprentice ITI Trainees by the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board (for short “the Board”) for a period of two years on fixed pay of Rs.350/- per month in 1987. The Board, vide Office Order No. 706/Finance dated 27.2.1998, set out the eligibility criteria for conferment of benefit of the ACP Scales. There is no dispute that the respondents, who were Technicians Grade-II, were not excluded from the application of the same. The only question that really emerged for consideration before the learned single Judge as well as by the Division Bench was the relevant date from which the regular satisfactory service was to be computed for grant of ACP Scales. The learned single Judge, after referring to the clause and the communications issued by the Board from time to time, came to hold that the regular satisfactory service would include the period spent by the persons as trainees. As regards the withdrawal of the first ACP Scale, the learned single Judge, referring to the notification dated 14.3.1990 and especially to clause (4) which dealt with grant of increment and thereafter applying the same reasoning, came to hold that clause (4) would have no operation to override the Office Order dated 27.2.1998 which provides how the regular satisfactory service could be reckoned and, eventually, came to hold that the ACP Scale that had been withdrawn during the pendency of the writ petition was absolutely erroneous. Being of this view, he quashed the withdrawal order and issued a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents therein to grant both the first and second ACP Scales reckoning the period of training towards the regular






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top