Back
JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Dharam Pal – Appellant
Versus
National Fertilizers Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)
As the issue involved is common, with the consent of contesting parties, all the captioned petitions are taken up together. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP No.17600 of 2018.
2. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking directions to the respondents to consider case of the petitioners for the appointment on regular posts in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. UP Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sang and others, AIR 1995 SC 1115.
3. The petitioners joined respondent-National Fertilizers Limited as apprentice in terms of Apprenticeship Act 1961 (for short 1961 Act'). The petitioners from 1999 to 2001 underwent three years training. It was an intensive training. The respondent-organization on completion of training did not appoint the petitioners in any section of the respondent. The respondent-organization vide advertisement dated 18.05.2018 (Annexure P-3) invited applications for the post of Junior Engineering Assistant Grade-II for its different manufacturing units. In the advertisement, minimum el
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.
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....
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....
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 court ruled that employers are not obligated to offer employment to apprentices post-training, especially when significant delay in seeking relief is present.
Employment cannot be guaranteed post-apprenticeship; transparency and fairness in hiring processes are mandated.
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
