M.M. Sundresh, J.

1. As the issues involved in the writ appeals and the writ petition are common, they have been taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment. Writ Appeal No. 1047 of 2008 is taken up as a lead case.

2. The factual Matrix:-

2.1 All the private respondents/writ petitioners have undergone training as Apprentices with the appellants. Contracts of Apprenticeship have been entered into between the appellant and the private respondents. The following is the apposite clause in the contract of apprenticeship governing the parties.

5. It shall not be obligatory on the part of the Employer to offer any employment to the Apprentice on completion of the period of training in his establishment, nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the Apprentice to accept any employment under the Employer.

2.2. After completion of the apprenticeship, the private respondents/writ petitioners continued to work as NMRs. They were working in the said capacity for few months but less than a year. Thereafter, their services were discontinued.

2.3. The recruitment policy, which was at vogue at the time of the Apprenticeship Agreements entered into between the parties, was subsequently changed in the year 2007 by which the recruitment was sought to be made through advertisement. Accordingly, there was no preference envisaged in favour of apprentices.

2.4. In addition to the Apprentices Agreements, the rights of the private respondents/writ petitioners are governed by Section 22 of the Apprentices Act. A fruitful recapitulation is as follows:

22. Offer and acceptance of employment-(1) It shall not be obligatory on the part of the employee to offer any employment to any apprentice who has completed the period of his apprenticeship training in his establishment nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to accept an employment under the employer.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in Sub-Section (1), where there is a condition in a contract of apprenticeship that the apprentice shall, after the successful completion of the apprenticeship training, serve the employer, the employee shall, on such completion, be bound to offer suitable employment to the apprentice, and the apprentice shall be bound to serve the employer in that capacity for such period and on such remuneration as may be specified in the contract.

2.5. Writ petitions have been filed by the private respondents starting from the year 2000 till 2007. Though the period of apprenticeship followed by continuation as NMR for few months expired many years ago, the agreements have been signed by the parties in the year 1989.

2.6. Writ petitions have been filed before the Madurai Bench of this Court by the Apprentices, who worked in the said capacity at Trichy, seeking appointments on regular basis. They were allowed by the learned single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench by order dated 14.05.2008 in W.A.MD.No. 685 of 2007 and W.P. Nos. 7657 of 2006 and 9639 of 2007 by placing reliance upon Section 22(2) of the Apprentices Act on the factual premise that there were no agreements in existence. The Division Bench also took note of the settlement entered into under Section 12(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the Management and various Unions.

2.7. The Private respondents/writ petitioners before us contended before the learned single Judge that they were also entitled for the relief granted by the Division Bench being similarly placed. Agreeing with the stand taken by them, the writ petitions were accordingly allowed. Challenging the orders passed, the present writ appeals have been filed.

3. Submissions of the Appellants:-

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the private respondents do not have any lien over the posts and the claim made by them is hit by delay and laches. There is absolutely no explanation for the belated approach to this Court. The facts governing the cases on hand are different from those available before the Division Bench.