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.

JUDGMENT :

G.JAYACHANDRAN, R.POORNIMA, JJ.

These are batch of Writ Appeals in sequel of earlier round of litigation between ITI Certificate holders in various trades like Welders, Fitters etc., who have undergone the apprentice trainintg at BHEl,Trichy/Respondents herein.

2.Earlier, a batch of Writ Petitions filed in the year 2005 and thereafter in W.P(MD)Nos.8675 and 11160 of 2005 and 2655 of 2007 etc., in which the learned Single Judge of this Court by common order, dated 12.10.2007 allowed those Writ Petitions directing the BHEL to induct the Apprentices trained under them into the employment as per the old Rule of Recruitment Policy. Whileso, the left over trainess seeking (i) employment against the sanctioned vacancies without resorting to recruitment process from open market filed Writ Petitions about 100 in numbers covering about 1400 persons. In this round of litigation, the learned Single Judge dismissed all the Writ Petitions in the common order, dated 04.08.2014. The said order is challenged in these Writ Appeals.

3.To understand the cause for the litigation, it is necessary to trace the history of the litigation between the management of BHEL and the persons who have completed apprentice training in BHEL. Earlier when certain Petitioners approached this Court seeking appointment in BHEl for the post of Welder Grade-IV and Fitters Grade-IV on the strength of their successful completion of apprentice training in the BHEL, Trichy, taking into consideration the existing recruitment policy at the time of their completion of training and the provisions of Apprentices Act , the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions with following observations:

‘’11.The judgment (cited supra) rendered by this Court has reviwed all the relevant cases relating to apprentices and amde a distinction between category of apprentices covered by Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act, who were merely trained by any industry without promise of future employment and with reference to apprentices who were trained by a relevant industry under Section 22(2) o the Apprentices Act, 1957 with a promise to absorb them.

12.In the present case, the policy for recruitment makes the Departmental candidate possessing specific requirements as a source of recruitment and also paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5 provide for induction to candidates having satisfactorily completed their apprenticeship training. Further, in the Ranipet Unit, similarly placed apprentices have been taken for employment. The respondents, being the same company, cannot make a distinction between the two units. Some of the Petitioners have also been employed as casuals after their apprenticeship training. Therefore the decision rendered to by the learned counsel for the respondents has no application to the facts of the cases on hand. On the other hand, the issue raised in these Petitions has been squarely answered by this Court in G.Ravikumar’s case(cites supra)’’.

4.The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by the management of BHEl and the same was dismissed by the Division Bench upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench reiterated the interpretation of Section 22(2) of the Apprentices Act as under:

‘’19.For the aforesaid purpose, the Writ Petitioners have referred to the employment policy of the BHEL which has been extracted by the learned Single Judge in the Judgment under challenge. In paragraph 6 of the Judgment, learned Single Judge has extracted para 4.4 and 4.5 indicate that ‘’ Induction in Grade B-III is normally by absorption of Commercial Apprentices on satisfactory completition of their apprenticeship under the Apprentices Act ’’.

19.1.The above, to some extent, indicates that Section 22(2) of the Apprentices Act would be applicable rather than Section 22(1). If one reads the reply of the Management regarding the representation made by the temporary workmen for regularization of their services, it is apparent