Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S.KULKARNI, AARTI SATHE
Prajwalit Tularam Gaikwad – Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners appointed as apprentices seek absorption. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioners claim right to absorption under section 22(1). (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. hpcl details transparent selection and training process. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. hpcl frames policy; no mandatory absorption obligation. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. petitioners argue statutory right via act amendments. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 6. respondents deny obligation; alternative remedies available. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 7. apprentices act regulates training, not employment rights. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 8. no legal right to absorption; policy formulation required. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 9. precedents inapplicable; no binding absorption clause. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 10. petition dismissed; no embargo on future applications. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
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 fo
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
