Full Judgment Text
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS.
A
v.
U.P. PARIVAHAN NIGAM SHISHUKHS BEROZGAR SANGH
AND ORS.
JANUARY 12, 1995
B
[KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]
Apprentices Act, 1961-Section 22 ( 1rApprenticeship Rules,
1991-Training of Apprentices-{;/aim of trainees to get employment after
completion of their training-Appropriate directions given regarding entitle-
C
ments of trainees.
The High Court of Allahabad gave some directions to the U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation to employ those apprentices who had
received training in the workshop of the Corporation. The direction had
been given on the basis of doctrine of promissory estoppel relying upon a
D
circular letter dated 1977 given out by the Joint General Manager of the
Corporation. This appeal had been tiled against this judgment of the High
Court.
According to the appellants Corporation, the doctrine of promissory
estoppel was not applicable in this case. Relying on Section 22 of the
Apprentices Act, it was contended that it was not obligatory on the part of
the employer to offer any employment to any apprentice wlto had com-
pleted the period of his apprenticeship training in his establishment unless
there be a condition in the contract to the contrary. The Corporation
placed on record a model contract form entered into between it and the
trainees which also stated about the aforesaid non- obligation. Therefore,
it was urged that the High Court could not have directed the employer to
give employment to the trainees.
E
F
Disposing of the matter, this Court
G
HELD: 1.1 For a promise to be enforceable, the same has to be clear
and unequivocal. In the instance case, no promise of employment could be
read in the circular letter dated 21st December, 1977, given out by the Joint
General Manager of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. Memo
·Ji of the Directorate of Training and Employment of the State of U.P. dated
204
U.P. STATE RD. TPT. v. U.P. PRIV AHAN NIGAM 205
21st September, 1977 also fell short of any promise of employment, because A
of what it stated was that full efforts should be made to provide the
trainees with service. No promise of employment could be read iu these
documents, and, therefore, at the call of promissory estoppel, the direction
in question could not have been given by the High Court. However, the
Government of India did desire that preference should be given to the
B
trained apprentices and it was because of this that the State Government
Stated in its letter No. 735/3838-6-16 (T) • 79 dt. 12-11-79 that where such
apprentices were available, direct recruitment should not be made. The
Government of India in its letter dated 23.3.1983 even desired reservation
of 50 percent vacancies for apprentices trainees. [209-E-F]
c
1.2 It would not be just and proper to go merely by what has been
stated in Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act, 1961, or in the model
contract form. What is required is to see that the nation gets the benefit
of time, money and energy spent on the trainees, which would be so when
they are employed in preference to non-trained direct recruits. This would
also meet the legitimate expectations of the trainees. [209·G-H] D
1.3 The following should, therefore, be kept in mind while dealing
with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful completion
of their training :-
E
(1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given
preference over direct recruits.
(2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name
sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this court in
Union of India v. Hargopal, AIR (1987) SC 1227, would permit this. F
(3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same would
be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any, in the
concerned service rule. If the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxa·
tion to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone G
training would be given.
( 4) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the
persons trained year-wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as
senior the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentice,
to
preference shall be given to those who are senior. [210-A-D] '-I
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.
A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-54
of 1990 etc. etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.10.89 of the Allahabad High
Court in W.P. Nos. 863, 942, 1210, 1283, 1413, 1957, 2545 and 2749 of 1989.
B B.C. Sen, Ramachandran, Pardeep Mishra, Ms. Sadhana
Ramachandran, Shakil Ahmad Syed, N.P. Midha for Bharat Sangal, K.K.
Gupta, Mohan Pandey, Prashant Kumar, Vishwajit Singh, Devendra Singh, ·
Subodh Markandeya for Ms. C. Markandeya, Shree Pal Singh, Arun Kr.
Sharma for Ms. Pratibha Jain, R.D. Upadhyay and M.S. Parihar for the
C appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HANSARIA, J. The material resources of this country are limited.
Indeed this is so for every country. The resource crunch is, however, acute
D for us; and so whenever and wherever public money is invested, it has to
be seen that there is a proper utilisation of the same in the sense that the
public ultimately gets benefit of the same.
2. This prelude is to highlight the idea which we propose to focus as
we proceed to bring home the need to make the investment in apprentices
trainees useful to the society, which would be so when the training received
E
by them is put to social use. We are putting this aspect of the matter at the
forefront because one of the appellants namely, the U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation, (hereinafter 'the Corporation') has made a
grievance about some directions given by the Allahabad High Court to
employ those who had received training in the workshop of the Corpora-
F
tion. The direction has been given mainly at the call of promissory estoppel
which is not applicable according to the Corporation. We would agree with
this stand of the Corporation; but then, another reason advance. for the
direction is also spending of money of imparting the training to the appren-
G tice, which aspect is relevant as already alluded, and which we proposed
to buttress further.
3. Before doing so, left the objects behind the enactment of Appren-
tices Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') and its main provisions along with what
has been stated in the Apprenticeship Rules, 1991 ('the Rule') be noted.
The need for the Act was felt, as mentioned in the Statement of the Objects
H
v.
U.P. STATE RD. TPT. U.P. PRIV ARAN NIGAM [HANSARIA, J.) 207
and Reasons, to ensure that the training of apprentices is streamlined in A
the back drop of increasing demand for skilled craftsman in the wake of
large scale industrial development onhe country. The Act, therefore,
proposed to provide for the regulation and control of training of appren-
tices. The amendment of the Act in 1973 by which training of graduate
engineers and diploma holders was introduced was for "improving their
employment potential" and to solve the immediate unemployment problem.
The amendment in 1986 aimed to provide "on the job training" to the
products of vocational streams so that adequate competence and skill
required for various occupations are acquired leading to "suitable employ-
ment or self-employment opportunities" in organised industries etc.
B
c
4. With the aforesaid objects in forefront, which the Act seeks to
achieve through its various amendments, let the relevant important
provisions be noted. Section 4 requires enterining into a contract before
an apprentice is permitted to undergo training. By the force of Rule 6(2)
of the Rules, the Central Government has even specified a model contract. D
Section 7 deals with the termination of apprenticeship contract and Rule
8 has laid down the quantum of compensation to be paid in case of
termination. Rule 5 even visualises reservation for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes trainees. A reference to Rule 7 shows that the period of
training extends upto for years in some cases; and as per Rule 11 the trade
apprentices are required to be paid stipend varying from Rs. 290 to Rs. E
700 per months. Rule 3 deal with the standard of education necessary for
making a person eligible for being engaged as a trade apprentice and a
glance of Schedules I and I-A shows that the minimum educational
qualification required is matriculation or its equivalent or 10th Class under
10 2 system, which qualification in case of technician is even graduation.
+ F
5. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the training imparted is rather
exhaustive and elaborate. Sufficient amount of money is also spent on the
trainees by way of payment of stipend to them. What is more there is an
obligation on the employers to provide an apprentice with training in his
trade in accordance with the provisions of the Act - Schedule V to the G
Rules containing details of the obligations; and the employer is also re-.
quired to ensure that a person possessing prescribed qualification is placed
in charge of training of the apprentices. The Act seeks to enforce these
obligations on the pain of even prosecution, about which mention has been
made in Section 30 of the Act. H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.
A 6. So the legislature did desire and make adequate provisions to see
that the competent persons receive due training to cater to the need of
increasing demand for skilled craftsman on one hand, and to improve the
employment potential of the trainees on the other. Good amount of money,
which would be public money in case of public bodies like the Corporation,
B is also spent on training the apprentices. Further, during the period of
training, the apprentices are put under a discipline akin to that of regular
employee inasmuch as Section 17 states that in all matters of conduct and
discipline, the apprentice shall be governed by the rule and regulations
applicable to employees of the corresponding category in the establishment
in which the apprentice is undergoing training. Section 16 requires pay-
C ment to the apprentice in case of injury due to accident arising out of and
in the course of training, in accordance with the provision of the Workmen
Compensation Act, 1924, as modified by the Act. The Rules have dealt
with the hours of work (Rule 12) and grant of leave (Rule 13) also.
D 7. The aforesaid provisions are sufficiently indicative of the fact that
the training imparted is desired to be result-oriented; and the trainees are
treated as akin to employees. Even so, Section 22 of the Act states, and it
is this provision which has been pressed in to service by the appellants, that
it shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer any employ-
E men! to any apprentice who has completed the period of his apprenticeship
training in his establishment unless there. be a condition in the contract to
the contrary. The model contract form finding place in Schedule VI of the
Rules echoes the voice of section 22(1) in its para 2. The Corporation has
placed on record a model contract form entered into between it and the
trainees which also states about the aforesaid non-obligation.
F
8. On the strength of these provisions, the contention advanced is
that the High Court could not have directed to gave employment to the
trainees. Reference to the impugned judgment, however, shows that while
giving the direction the Court was conscious of what has been provided in
G Section 22 of the Act; even so, the direction was given on the basis
principally of doctrine of promissory estoppel as already noted. As to this
view taken by the High Court, we state that, according to us, the direction
in question could not have been glilen because of this principle, despite
what was given out by the Joint General Manager of the Corporation in
H his Circular letter dated 1977 referred in the judgment.
V.
U.P.STATERD. TPT. U.P.PRIVAHANNIGAM [HANSARJAJ.) 209
9. We have said so as reference to that circular shows that all it has A
done is to lay down the procedure for the selection of the apprentices,
which did not require the apprentices to undergo any written examination
for selection and their routing through employment exchange was done
away with. Some thing was said about the age also. No promise of employ-
ment can be read in this Circular which is of 21st December, 1977. We B
would say the same about the Memo of the Directorate of Training and
employment of the State of U.P. dated 21st September, 1977 as it falls short
of any promise of employment, because what it says is that full efforts
should be made to provide the trainees with service. In this Memo, what
had been stated in para 2 of the Government of India's letter dated
31.8.1978 had been quoted in which it was mentioned that the scheme of C
training had been introduced to promote chances of employment of edu-
cated employed persons; and that if employers would not provide employ-
ment to the qualified apprentices the same would amount to destruction
of developed human resources. It is because of this that the Government
of India expressed the deire that "other things being equal trained appren- D
tices should be given preference in case of empioyment".
10. For a promise to be enforceable, the same has, however, to be
une~uivocal.
clear and We do not read .any such promise in the aforesaid
three documents and we, therefore, hold that at the call of promissory E
estoppel, the direction in question could not have been given by the High
Court. But then, we are left in no doubt that the Government of India did
desire that preference should be given to the trained apprentices and it is
because of this that the State Government stated in its letter No. 735/38-6-
16 (T)-79 dt. 12.11.79 that where such apprentices are available, direct
recruitment should not to be made. Indeed, the Government of India in its
letter dated 23.3.1983 even desired reservation of 50 per cent vacancies for
apprentice trainees.
F
11. The aforesaid being the position, it would not be just and proper
to go merely by what has been stated in Section 22(1) of the Act, or for G
that matter, in the model Contract form. What is indeed required is to see
that the nation gets the benefit of time, money and energy spent on the
trainees, which would be so when they are employed in preference to
non-trained direct recruits. This would also meet the legitimate expecta-
tions of the trainees. H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1995]1 S.C.R.
A 12. In the background of what has been noted above, we state that
the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees
to get employment after successful completion of their training: -
(1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given
preference over direct recruits.
B
(2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name
sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in
Union of India v. Hargopal, AIR (1987) SC 1227, would permit this.
(3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same wt>uld
C
be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any, in the
concerned service rule. If the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation
to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training
would be given.
D (4) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the
persons trained year wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as
senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices,
preference shall be given to those who are senior.
13. In so far as the case at hand are concerned, we find that the
E
Corporation filed an additional affidavit in C.A. Nos. 4347-4354of1990 (as
desired by the Court) on 20th October, 1992 giving position regarding
vacancies in the posts of conductors and clerks. If such posts be still vacant,
we direct the Corporation to act in accordance with what has been stated
above regarding the entitlement of the trainees. We make it clear that while
F
considering the cases of the trainees for giving employment in suitable
posts, what has been laid down in the Service Regulations of the Corpora-
tion shall be followed, except that the trainees would not be required to
appear in any written examination, if any provided by the Regulations. It
is apparent that before considering the cases of the trainees, the require-
G ment of their names being sponsored by the employment exchange would
not be insisted upon. In so far as the age requirement is concerned, the
same shall be relaxed as indicated above.
14. The appeals/Special Leave Petitions are disposed of with the
H aforesaid directions and observations by modifying the impugned judg~
l
U.P. STATE RD. TPT. v. U.P. PRN ARAN NIGAM [HANSARIA, J.] 211
ments accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the A
parties to bear their own costs.
IA. Nos. 11 to 21, 30 of 1991. 39 and 40 of 1992.
In view of the above judgment, no order need be passed on these
applications which stand disposed of.
A.G. Petitions disposed of.
I