LexSTATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. versus U.P. P ARIV AHAN NIGAM SHISHUKHS BEROZGAR SANGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. '" v. ~ U.P. P ARIV AHAN NIGAM SHISHUKHS BEROZGAR SANGH AND ORS. B JANUARY 12, 1995 [KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] Apprentices Act, 1961-S ection 22 ( 1 )-Apprenticeship Rules, 1991-Training of Apprentices-Claim of trainees to get employment after c completion of their training-Appropriate directions given regarding entitle- 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 D received training in the workshop of the Corporation. The direction had been given <in the basis of doctrine of promissory estoppel relying upon a ~ circular letter dated 1977 given out by the Joint General Manager of the Corporation. This appeal had been filed against this judgment of the High Court. E 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 wlao 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 4" .. F 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. G Disposing of the matter, this Court 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 ·H of the Directorate of Training and Employment of the State of U.P. dated 204 U.P.STATERD. TPT. v. U.P.PRIVAHANNIGAM 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 in 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 trained apprentices and it was because of this that the State Government B 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 kep_!, 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. (2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this court in E 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 to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentice, preference shall be given to those who are senior. (210-A-D] >:l 206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-54 ~~~~ ~ From the Judgment and Ord
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.