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 appointment, and the employer is not obligated to absorb them as regular employees.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The present Letters Patent Appeal is arising out of order dated 03.06.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 6811/2022 declining to grant relief of appointment/regularization in the services of National Insurance Company Limited on the post of Officer Scale I with all consequential benefits.

2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that an advertisement was issued on 01.11.2018 by Respondent No.2 National Insurance Company Limited inviting applications for recruitment of 150 Accounts Apprentices on All-India basis. 97 candidates, pursuant to the advertisement issued by Respondent No.2 participated in the process of selection for the post of Accounts Apprentices and they were appointed vide appointment letter dated 06.06.2019.

3. The facts further reveal that the period of apprenticeship as per the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment was 2 years and the selected apprentices were to be paid a stipend of Rs.25,000/- per month for the first year and Rs.30,000/- for the second year. A bond was also executed by them of Rs.1,00,000/- giving an undertaking that they will not leave the company before completion of the period of apprenticeship (1 year). The facts of the case reveal that the apprenticeship period of the Appellants was subjected to two extensions vide letter dated 22.06.2021 by which it was extended till 31.12.2021, i.e. for a period of six months and subsequently on 31.12.2021 by which it was again extended by six months i.e. upto 30.06.2022. It is also pertinent to note that subsequent extension vide extension letter dated 31.12.2021 specified categorically that the second extension granted to the Accounts Apprentices was in the nature of final extension.

4. The facts further reveal that in the interregnum various correspondences took place between the officials of Respondent No.2 appreciating performance of the appointed Accounts Apprentices and had even recommended their regularization in due course. However, no decision was taken by the competent authority in the matter of regularization. The extended period was coming to an end on 30.06.2022 and in those circumstances the Appellants preferred a representation before the Respondent No.2 seeking regularization on the post of Administrative Officer Scale 1.

5. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent to take steps in furtherance, the Appellants preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C.) No. 6811/2022 and contended before the learned Single Judge that as per the advertisement dated 01.11.2018 the Appellants were assured of absorption as regular Scale I Officers subject to their performance and existence of vacancies.

6. It was also contended by the Appellants that they satisfied the twin criteria, i.e. the availability of vacancies and as their performance having been found outstanding, there was no occasion for the Respondents not to absorb the Appellants. The Appellants by filing a writ petition prayed for the following reliefs:

"i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or directions directing the Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioners as Administrative Officer Scale I in the Respondent organization, the National Insurance Company Limited, with all service benefits of Scale I and consequential seniority on the said post; and/or

ii. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in light of the facts and circumstances of the case."

7. The employer Respondent No.2 defended the case and stated before the learned Single Judge that the apprentices did not have a right of absorption and they were appointed purely as trainee apprentices. No promise was made at any point of time for their absorption/regularization after completion of apprenticeship contract. They were appointed purely on the basis of a contract for a required period and the organization did not have vacancies nor were there any requirement of work, hence, the question of regularization d