Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and Others vs. Harkesh Chand and Others, Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2013, (Arising
out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29987 of 2010) Decided on January 7th, 2013
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“An apprentice does not have a
statutory right to claim an appointment and the employer is not under any
statutory obligation to give him employment. However, if the terms of the
contract of apprenticeship lay down a condition that on successful completion
of apprenticeship an employer would offer him an employment, then it is
obligatory on his part to do so. In the absence of such a condition, there is
no obligation. It depends on the terms of the contract”. [Para 27]
On the fact of the case the Court held:
“In the case at hand, as the
letter of appointment would show, the employer had only stated that on
successful completion of the training, the apprentice may be appointed as Plant
Attendant/Technician Grade-II. Thus, it was not a mandatory term incorporated
in the agreement casting an obligation on the employer to appoint him”.
[Para 27]
The Court noted
following case law:
U.P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh and Another (2004) 8 SCC 402, A.K. Mathur, J., speaking
for Hegde, J. and himself, while dealing with the status of apprentice, has
stated: -
“Therefore a combined reading of the sections as well
as Rules makes it clear that apprentices are only persons undergoing training
and during that training they are entitled to get a particular stipend, they
have to work for fixed hours and at the end of period of training they have to
appear in the test and a certificate is issued to them. There is no obligation
on the part of the employer to give them any employment whatsoever. The
position of the apprentice remains as an apprentice trainee and during the
period of training they will not be treated as workmen. Only obligation on the
part of the employer is to impart them training as per provisions of the Act and
Rules and to pay them stipend as required under Rule 11 and beyond that there
is no obligation on the part of the employer to accept them as his employees
and give them the status of workmen. There is no relation of master and servant
or employer and employee.”
In the instant
case the Court observed:
“Be it noted, in the said
case, in paragraph 51, it has been laid down that the 1961 Act is a complete
code in itself and it lays down the conditions of the apprentices, their
tenure, their terms and conditions and their obligations and what are the
obligations of the employer. It also lays down that the apprentices are
trainees and not workmen and if any dispute arises, then the settlement has to
be made by the Apprenticeship Advisor as per Section 20 of the Apprentices Act,
1961 and his decision thereof is final. The nature and character of the
apprentice is nothing but that of a trainee and he is supposed to enter into a
contract and by virtue of that contract, he is to serve for a fixed period on a
fixed stipend and that does not change the character of the apprentice to that
of a workman under the employer where he is undergoing the apprenticeship
training. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 only lays down that such contract should
be registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser, but by non-registration of the
contract, the position of the apprentice is not changed to that of a workman.
From the scheme of the Act, the apprentice is recruited for the purpose of
training as defined in Section 2(aa) of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and from the
language employed in Sections 6 and 7, it is more than clear that the nature
and character of the apprentice is that of a trainee only and on the expiry of
the training, there is no corresponding obligation on the part of the employer
to employ him”. [Para 23]
The Court also
noted following case laws:
Narinder Kumar
and Others v. The State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1985 SC 275 a two-Judge Bench
dwelt upon the letter of appointment of apprentices and came to hold that the
employer was bound to appoint the apprentices in the available vacancies
because of Section 22(2) of the 1961 Act and the contractual obligations
arising out of para 2 of the letter of appointment which stated that the
apprentices shall be absorbed in the department if there are vacancies. Be it
noted, emphasis was laid on the nature of the contract.
Dhampur Sugar
Mills Ltd. v. Bhola Singh (2005) 2 SCC 470, while dealing with an award passed
by the Labour Court under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act relating to
apprentices, a two-Judge Bench opined thus: -
“14. If the respondent was appointed in terms of the Apprentices
Act, 1961, he will not be a workman, as has been held by this Court in Mukesh
K. Tripathi v. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC (2004) 8 SCC 387 and U.P. SEB v.
Shiv Mohan Singh (2004) 8 SCC 402.
15. In terms of the
provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961, a trainee or an apprentice has no
right to be absorbed in services.”
To see full text follow the link: