The court ruled that employers are not obligated to offer employment to apprentices post-training, especially when significant delay in seeking relief is present.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

By this common order CWP-22409-2023, CWP-22585- 2023, CWP-22604-2023 and CWP-22608-2023 are disposed of since issue involved in all the petitions and prayer sought are common. With the consent of parties and for the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from CWP-22409-2023.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to appoint the petitioner at the appropriate post.

3. The petitioner during 2009-2010 was appointed an apprentice by respondent. The petitioner completed apprenticeship training which was of 1 year. The respondent did not appoint the petitioner as regular or contractual employee. The petitioner remained silent till October' 2020. On 26.10.2020, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondents to consider his case for the appointment at an appropriate post.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had undergone apprenticeship training with respondent, thus, petitioner is a trained employee and respondent should consider case of the petitioner for the appointment.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. The petitioner is relying upon Section 22 of Apprenticeship Act, 1961 which specifically provides that it shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer employment to any apprentice who has completed the period of his apprenticeship training nor it shall be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to accept an employment with employer. Section 22 of the Act reads as:

" 22 Offer and acceptance of employment.-

(1) It shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer 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 employer 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:

Provided that where such period or remuneration is not, in the opinion of the Apprenticeship Adviser, reasonable, he may revise such period or remuneration so as to make it reasonable and the period or remuneration so revised shall be deemed to be the period or remuneration agreed to between the apprentice and the employer.

6. In the contract the apprenticeship executed between the parties, there was no condition that employer would offer suitable employment to the apprentice.

7. The petitioner in 2009 was appointed apprentice for one year. Post completion of apprenticeship, he opted to remain silent for about 12 years and filed representation on 26.10.2020 with respondents. The petitioner has approached this Court after the expiry of 13 years from the date of cause of action, if any.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner expressed his inability to explain reason of long delay of 13 years except to say that petitioner had filed representation with respondents.

9. In Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Dugal Kumar (2008) 14 SCC 295, supreme court has considered scope of interference in case of delay and laches. Court has held:

"24. As to delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner, there is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant Company. It is well settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of a High Court to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction is discretionary. One of the grounds to refuse relief by a writ court is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. It is imperative, where the petiti