Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
U.P. STATE OF ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
U.P. PARIVAHAN NIGAM SHISHUKHS BEROZGAR SANGH & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT12/01/1995
BENCH:
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
BENCH:
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
KULDIP SINGH (J)
MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)
CITATION:
1995 AIR 1115 1995 SCC (2) 1
JT 1995 (2) 26 1995 SCALE (1)127
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
1. The material resources of this country are limited.
Indeed this is so for every country. The resource crunch
is, however, acute 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 apprentice trainees useful to the society ,
which would be so when the training received 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, (herein after ’the
Corporation), has made a grievance about some directions
given by the Allahabad-High
28
Court to employ those who had received training in the
workshop of the Corporation. 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
advanced for the direction is also spending of money on
imparting the training to the apprentice, which aspect is
relevant as already alluded, and which we propose to
buttress further.
3. Before doing so, let the objects behind the enactment
of Apprentices Act, 1961 (for short, ’the Act ’) and its
main provisions along with what has been stated in the
Apprenticeship Rules 1991 (’the Rules’) be noted. The need
for the Act was felt as mentioned in the Statement of the
Objects and Reasons, to ensure that the training of
apprentices streamlined in the back drop of increasing
demand for skilled craftsman in the wake of large scale
industrial development of the country. The Act, therefore,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
proposed to provide for the regulation and control of
training of apprentices. The amendment of the Act in 1973
by which training of graduate engineers and diploma holders
was introduced was for "improving their employment po-
tential" 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 employment or self-employment
opportunities" in organised industries etc.
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 entering into a contract before an apprentice is
admitted to undergo training. By the force of Rule 6(2) of
the Rules, the Central Government has even specified a model
contract. 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 Sched-
uled Tribes trainees. A references to Rule 7 shows that the
period of training extends upto four years in some cases;
and as per Rule 11 the trade apprentices are required to be
paid stipend varying from Rs.290 to Rs. 700 per month. Rule
3 deals with the standard of education necessary for making
a person eligible for being engaged as a trade apprentice
and a glance of Schedules 1 and 1-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.
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 Rules containing details of the
obligations; and the employer Is also required 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.
29
6.So the legislature did desire and make adequate provisions
to see that the competent persons receive due training to
cater 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,
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 in as much as
Section 17 states that in all matters of conduct and
discipline the apprentice shall be governed by the rules and
regulations applicable to employees of the corresponding
category in the establishment in which the apprentice is
undergoing training. Section 16 requires payment 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, modified by
the Act. The Rules have dealt with the hours of work (Rule
12) and grant of leave (Rule 13) also.
7.The aforesaid provisions arc sufficiently indicative of
the fact of the fact that the training imparted is desired
to be result-oriented; and the trainees are treated as akin
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
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 employment to apprentice who
has completed the period of his apprenticeship training in
this 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.
8.On the strength of these provisions, the contention
advanced is that the High Court could not have directed to
give 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 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 given because of this principle, despite what was
given out by the Joint General Manager of the Corporation in
his Circular letter dated 1977 referred in the judgment.
9.We have said so as reference to that Circular shows that
all it has done is to lay down the procedure for the selec-
tion 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. Something was said about the age also. No promise of
employment can be read in this Circular which is of 21st
December,1977. We 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 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
SOD
which it was mentioned that the scheme of training had been
introduced to promote chances of employment of educated
employed persons; and that if employers would not provide
employment to the qualified apprentices this would amount to
destruction of developed human resources. It is because of
this that the Government of India expressed the desire that
other things being equal trained apprentices should be given
preference in case of employment".
10. For a promise to be enforceable, the same has, however
to be clear and unequivocal. We do not read any such prom-
ise in the aforesaid three documents and we, therefore, hold
that at the call of promissory 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 arc available, direct
recruitment should not to be made. Indeed, the Government
of India in its letter dated 23.3.1983 even desired reserva-
tion of 50 per cent vacancies for apprentice trainees.
11. Theaforcsaid 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 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
trainces, which would be so when they are cm’ployed in
preference to non-trained direct recruits. This would also
meet the legitimate expectations of the trainees.
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 of their training:-
(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.
(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, relaxation to the
extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone
training would be given.
(4) The conccrned 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 cases at hand are concerned, we find
that the Corporation filed an additional affidavit in C.A.
Nos. 4347-4854 of 1990 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 va-
cant, 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 con-
31
sidering the cases of the trainees for giving employment in
suitable posts, what has been laid down in the Service
Regulations of the Corporation 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 requirement 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
which the aforesaid directions and observations by modifying
the impugned judgment accordingly. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to tear
their own costs.
I.A. Nos. 11 to 21, 30 of 1991, 39 and 40 of 1992
15. In view of the above judgment, no order need be passed
on these applications which stand disposed of
32