Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S.KULKARNI, AARTI SATHE
Prajwalit Tularam Gaikwad – Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.S. KULKARNI, J.
1. The petitioners, who were appointed as Apprentices by respondent no. 1-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a direction against HPCL to consider the petitioners for absorption on regular posts as Grade “A” officers. The petitioners also seek a direction that HPCL be directed to frame the policy of absorption/recruitment of Graduate Apprentices as per Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act, 1961 (for short “Apprentices Act”), by setting aside their automatic termination of the contract appointment, as apprentices.
2. At the outset, the prayers as made in the petition are required to be noted, which read thus:
“(a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order/direction/writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to consider the petitioners to absorb/appoint them on the regular Post Grade “A” officer.
(b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order/direction/writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents including Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to frame the Policy of
Section 22(1) of Apprentices Act mandates employer policy for recruiting completed apprentices but imposes no obligation for absorption or regular employment; explicit contract disclaimers prevail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that apprentices cannot claim absorption as regular employees based on the terms of the Apprentices Act, 1961, and the conditions of their appointm....
The court affirmed that apprentices do not have an automatic right to employment post-training unless explicitly stated in their apprenticeship contract, as per Section 22 of the Apprentices Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim may be dismissed on the grounds of estoppel and res judicata if similar grievances have been considered and dismissed in previous liti....
Object of Article 16 is to create a constitutional right to equality of opportunity and employment in public offices.
An employer is not obligated to offer employment to apprentices upon completion of training unless a contractual obligation exists, and the employer has discretion in setting qualification criteria.
Section 22 of the Apprentices Act does not obligate employment post-apprenticeship, but age relaxations for candidates may be justified based on apprenticeship duration.
The court established that while employers are not obligated to employ apprentices post-training, age relaxation may be granted based on apprenticeship duration, aligning with the expectations inhere....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
