Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran, Ms Justice R.Poornima, JJ
A.Das Navis Amirtharaj – Appellant
Versus
Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, BHEL Corporate Office, Siri Fort, New Delhi – Respondent
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 comple
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.
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 apprentices cannot claim absorption as regular employees based on the terms of the Apprentices Act, 1961, and the conditions of their appointm....
Object of Article 16 is to create a constitutional right to equality of opportunity and employment in public offices.
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....
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 of the Apprentices Act does not obligate employment post-apprenticeship, but age relaxations for candidates may be justified based on apprenticeship duration.
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
