Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. KULKARNI, AARTI SATHE, JJ.
Prajwalit Tularam Gaikwad and Others – Appellants
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3767 of 2018
Decided On : 09-03-2026
| 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 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 absorption/recruitment of Graduate Apprentice as per Section 22(1) Apprentices Act, 1961.
(c) 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 consider petitioners for absorption/appointment to the post of Grade “A” officer, w.e.f. the date on which they have completed one year’s training.
(d) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order/direction/writ in the nature of mandamus to quash the termination of petitioners issued by HPCL to the reporting officer on completion of their one year training one such letter of HPCL (Exhibit-U).
(d)(i) This Court may be pleased to issue appropriate order/direction/writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari to quash the said so called policy dated 01.06.2018 of HPCL annexed as annexure with sur-rejoinder affidavit dated 05.06.2018 filed by HPCL in this Hon’ble Court.
(d)(ii) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate order/direction/writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the HPCL that the said so called policy dated 01.06.2018 has no application to the petitioners & the petitioners Apprentices be appointed/absorbed to the Entry Level Management Position as about 250 Entry Level Management Positions are vacant.
(d)(iii) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate order/direction/writ in the nature of mandamus to recruit/absorb the petitioner apprentices on the entry level posts of officer/engineer Grade A, from themselves, without subjecting them to written test, on the basis of interview and/or quarterly assessments already conducted by respondent HPCL.”
3. The relevant facts are: The petitioners claim to be graduates in Engineering, i.e., B.E./B.Tech from Civil & Mechanical streams. The petitio
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
