LexBOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA & ORS. versus AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 651 -; BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA & A ~ ORS. v. AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6754 of 2008) NOVEMBER 25, 2008 B ,l [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] y Labour Laws - Recruitment - Trained apprentices and wards of employees dying in harness - Recruitment of, in the c ratio of 1:1 by Port Trust- However, practice discontinued - Challenge to, by 321 trained apprentices - Directions by High Court to give employment to ex-trade apprentices along with died-in-harness category and restore the balance in quota - Reliance placed on Government Guidelines, circulars and b communications issued - Upheld by Division Bench - Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable - Communication does not constitutes an unequivocal, unqualified and ~ enforceable promise nor lays down mode of recruitment on permanent basis or creates any rights in favour of trained E apprentices - Ex-trade apprentices were appointed at one time in equal numbers to those appointed under compassionate appointments scheme but the practice was not based on any statutory provision or agreement - There is no comprehensible connection between the two groups nor any F .,. rational basis for parity between the two groups - Thus, orders "-- of High. Court set aside. In 1970s, the Calcutta Port Trust used to recruit trained apprentices and wards of employees dying in c3 harness in the Mechanical Engineering Department in the ratio of 1 :1. They discontinued the said old practice and l. appointed only the wards of employees dying in harness "'-y on compassionate grounds. Respondent viz. 321 trained apprentices filed writ petition seeking their appointment 651 H .. ' ( 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R. -A equal ·in number to those appointed on compassionate basis during past many years. On direction by the High Court, the Chairman of the _Port Trust heard the trained apprentices and rejected their claim. Trained apprentices raised demands. The Chairman found that the post of s Fireman in the Marine Department were never filled up by transfer of unskilled labours from the mechanical department; that the Trust was passing through great financial stringency and was burdened with surplus workforce; that there was already a list of about 1200 c persons, dependents of the employees who died in harness; and that a list of trained apprentice·s was already maintained by the Trust for giving preference to them in the matter of direct recruitment to the posts matching their skills and qualifications, thus, there was 0 no occasion to maintain any other list of trained apprentices for filling up only the vacancies in the Marine department and if any occasion arose to fill up posts by direct recruitment, the passed out trade ·apprentices would also be considered. Trained apprentices challenged the order of the Chairman. High Court allowed E the writ petition. It relied on the Government guidelines, circulars and the communications issued by the Port Trust and directed the Port Trust to consirfcr the cases of the respondent for giving them employm~nt as trained apprentice along with candidates from die,d in harness F category, in the ratio 1 :1 and restore the balance in quota meant for two categories. Port Trust filed appeal which was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. G H Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It cannot be accepted that the letter of July 30, 1986 by the Secretary of the Trust to the Joint General Secrete1ry, Calcutta Port Shramik Union with regard to lifting the ban on recruitment of ex-trade apprentices and absorption of trade apprentices on its own or read along x -I BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA & 653 ORS. v. AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS. with the earlier communication dated January 4, 1985 A . from the Labour Advisor & Industrial Relations Officer of the Port Trust to the Joint General Secretary of the Calcutta Port Shramik Union with regard to recruitment of the ex-trade apprentices, constitutes an unqualified, enforceable promise or lays down a mode of recruitment B on a permanent basis or creates any rights in favour of the trained apprentices. It is difficult to read in the communication of January.4, 1985 any clear, unequivocal and unqualified promise that may be enforceable after a quarter of century under vastly different conditions. The, c recruitments from the two categories cannot be linked- u
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.