JUDGMENT :

Jayant Patel, J.

The petitioners, by this petition, challenge the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, whereby the reference has been allowed and it is further directed that in respect of 37 concerned employees, option be given to them of their earlier services and if opted, benefit be given from the date of the training by treating it as continuous service.

2. The short facts of the case appear to be that as per the petitioners, they wanted to engage Trade Apprentice in the Kakrapar Atomic Power Project of Government of India and therefore, on 16.8.1986, an advertisement was given. The concerned employees of the respondent union (hereinafter referred to as "the concerned employees") applied for the post and they were selected and they were issued appointment letters while engaging them on apprenticeship basis. Thereafter, on 3.9.1987, the Government of India decided to form a Corporation for the Nuclear Power Projects and under these circumstances, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited was incorporated on 4.9.1987. On 11.5.1989, the concerned employees completed the training programme and as per the petitioners, after completion of training, they were given appointment by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Power Corporation"). The concerned employees accepted all the conditions and later on, options were given also to the other Government of India employees, who were on deputation with the Power Corporation. Such continued for a long time. However, in the year 1999, the dispute was raised by the respondent union on behalf of the concerned employees contending that the option for absorption or retaining the rights with the Government of India should have been given. Such dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication being Reference (ITC) No. 30 of 1999. The Tribunal ultimately passed the above referred award. Under the circumstances, present petition before this Court.

3. I have heard Mr. Ajmera, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The copy of one of the appointment orders is produced at Annexure D dated 8.4.1987 by which the concerned employees and the other similarly situated persons were offered apprenticeship for the purpose of training. In the said letter, it has been stated as under:

"You are hereby offered a Trade Apprenticeship in this Project."

5. There are various conditions, to which we are not much concerned in the present matter. The relevant condition is condition No. 7, which reads as under:

"On your joining the training you will be required to execute an agreement in the prescribed form (enclosed) undertaking:-

(a) to complete the course of training within the prescribed period, and;

(b) to serve, on successful completion of training any of the organization/constituent units under the Department of Atomic Energy for a period of five years if offered employment."

[Emphasis supplied]

6. The aforesaid shows that the obligation is created upon the concerned employees, who complete the training to serve with the department for a period of five years, but the contingency is that if he or she is offered employment. There is no counter obligation with the Government of India to offer employment. It is undisputed position that when the concerned employees completed the training, the Power Corporation was already formed and the appointment orders were issued in 1989. The concerned employees consciously accepted all conditions as that of the employees of the Power Corporation and continued in the service of the Power Corporation for about 10 years i.e. upto 1999. The concerned employees also enjoyed the benefit as if the employees of the Power Corporation. After a period of about 10 years, a dispute has been raised referred to herein above that the option should have been made available to the concerned employees to continue the benefit of the Government of India.

7. In my view, there was no