LexHARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS versus HARKESH CHAND AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 593
HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION
LIMITED AND OTHERS
v.
HARKESH CHAND AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2013)
JANUARY 07, 2013
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]
SeNice Law:
Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scale - Entitlement
- Whether period spent in apprenticeship would be counted
towards regular satisfactory seNice - For the purpose of grant
of ACP scale - Held: The period spent in apprenticeship
cannot be counted for grant of ACP Scale, because
apprentices are trainees and not workmen - Apprentices Act,
1961 - ss. 2(aa), 2(aaa) and 18.
Words and Phrases - 'apprentice' and 'apprenticeship
training' - Meaning of, in the context of Apprentices Act, 1961.
Respondents filed writ petition claiming their second
assured Career Progression (ACP) Scale on completion
of 20 years of service. They took the plea that the period
should include the period of training as apprentice. They
asserted that while grant of first ACP on completion of
10 years of service, period of apprenticeship was
included. During pendency of the writ petition, the
appellant-department withdrew the first ACP Scale, in
view of clause (4) of Notification dated 14.3.1990. Single
Judge of the High Court held that regular satisfactory
service would include the period spent in apprenticeship
and clause (4) of Notification dated 14.3.1990 cannot
override the order dated 27 .2.198 which provided
reckoning of regular satisfactory service. In Writ appeal,
593
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A Division Bench of High Court upheld the order of Single
Judge. Hence the present appeal.
Disposing c{ the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 2(aa) of the Apprentices Act, 1961
8 (for short "the 1961 Act") defines "apprentice" which
means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship
training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship.
Section 2(aaa) defines "apprenticeship training" which
means a course of training in any industry or
C establishment undergone in pursuance of a contract of
apprenticeship and under prescribed terms and
conditions which may be different for different categories
of apprentices. Section 18 clearly states that apprentices
are trainees and not workers. An apprentice does not
D 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
E 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. [Paras 20, 21 and
27] [606-D-F; 609-E-F]
F
2. The respondents in the present case, were
appointed as apprentices ITI trainee for a period of two
years. Each of them were paid a fixed salary of Rs.350/-.
After completion of the training, it was mentioned in the
letter of appointment that they may be appointed to the post
of Officiating Technical Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.400/
G 700 on temporary basis. The employer had only stated that
on successful completion of the training, the apprentice
may be appointed as Plant AttendantJTechnician Grade-II.
Thus, it was not a mandatory term incorporated in the
agreement casting an obligation on the employer to
H appoint him. [Paras 19 and 27) [606-C-D; 609-G]
HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION
595
LIMITED v. HARKESH CHAND
U. P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh and
A
Anr. (2004) 8SCC 402: 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 953; Narinder
Kumar and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1985
SC 275: 1985 (2) SCR 52; Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v.
Bhola Singh (2005) 2 SCC 470: 2005 (1) SCR 1123; Mukesh
K. Tripathi v. Senior Divisional Manager, UC (2004) 8 SCC
B
387: 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 127 - relied on.
3. In view of the promotion policy, the ACP Scheme
and the communications, the High Court has erred in its
appreciation of the contents of the promotion policy and C
the conditions incorporated in the scheme and the
clarificatory letters issued from time to time and their
essential purport. The respondents were appointed as
apprentices ITI trainee on 28.3.1987 and they were not
given any kind of post. It is only mentioned that they may
D
be appointed as Plant Attendant Grade-II/Technician
Grade-II. Thereafter, they were appointed on different
dates aExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.