Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Surajit Barman S/o Dheneswar Barman – Appellant
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. U. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking appropriate directions upon the respondents thereby to provide benefits to Apprentices under the APPRENTICES ACT , 1961, and more particularly, taking into account the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Others , reported in AIR 1995 SC 1115 and further the petitioner has also sought for a direction upon the respondents to grant age relaxation to the petitioner by excluding the period of Apprenticeship training from the age computation and to permit the petitioner to apply and participate in the recruitment process for the post of Junior Engineering Assistant, Grade IV (P&U).
3. The brief facts of the instant case as it appears from the materials on record is that the petitioner herein, pursuant to a notification for engagement of apprentice dated 24.09.2022 was engaged as Trade/Technician Apprentice at IOCL, Guwahati Refinery for a period of 24 months w.e.f. 01.02.2023 to 31.01.2025. Purs
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 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(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 a claim may be dismissed on the grounds of estoppel and res judicata if similar grievances have been considered and dismissed in previous liti....
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....
Irregular appointments without fraud may be permitted to continue under sympathetic circumstances, despite age limit breaches in eligibility. Appointments declared void-ab-initio in accord with U.P. ....
Right of the petitioners to claim age relaxation as they were within age and had applied for recruitment pursuant to the earlier advertisement which got cancelled.
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
