[Cites 24, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Prajwalit Tularam Gaikwad And Ors. vs Hindustan Retroleum Corporation Ltd. ... on 9 March, 2026
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
2026:BHC-AS:11566-DB
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3767 OF 2018
1. Prajwalit Tularam Gaikwad & Ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
2. Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas
3. Directorate General of Training (DGT)
Ministry of Skill Development and
Entrepreneurship
4. Ministry of Human Resources Development
5. Central Apprenticeship Council ... Respondents
_________
Mr. Rakesh Upadhyay a/w. Mr. Subhash V. Gutte, Ms. Aarti U. Mishra, Ms. Sayali
Gutte, Mr. Harsh Som, Mr. Vishal Chauhan, Mr. Saurabh S. Gutte for the
petitioners.
Mr. Lancy D'souza a/w. Deepika Agarwal i/b. V.M. Parkar for respondent no.1
Mr. N.R. Prajapati a/w. Mr. Anil Yadav for respondent nos. 2 to 4/UOI.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
RESERVED ON: 4 FEBRUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 9 MARCH 2026
Judgment (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.)
1. The petitioners, who were appointed as Apprentices by respondent no. 1-
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) have filed this petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a direction against HPCL to
consider the petitioners for absorption on regular posts as Grade "A" officers. The
petitioners also seek a direction that HPCL be directed to frame the policy of
absorption/recruitment of Graduate Apprentices as per Section 22(1) of the
Apprentices Act, 1961 (for short "Apprentices Act"), by setting aside their
automatic termination of the contract appointment, as apprentices.
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
2. At the outset, the prayers as made in the petition are required to be noted,
which read thus:
"(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate
order/direction/writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to consider the petitioners to
absorb/appoint them on the regular Post Grade "A" officer.
(b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate
order/direction/writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents
including Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to frame the Policy of
absorption/recruitment of Graduate Apprentice as per Section 22(1)
Apprentices Act, 1961.
(c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate
order/direction/writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents
including Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to consider petitioners for
absorption/appointment to the post of Grade "A" officer, w.e.f. the date on
which they have completed one year's training.
(d) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate
order/direction/writ in the nature of mandamus to quash the termination of
petitioners issued by HPCL to the reporting officer on completion of their
one year training one such letter of HPCL (Exhibit-U).
(d)(i) This Court may be pleased to issue appropriate order/direction/writ
in the nature of mandamus/certiorari to quash the said so called policy dated
01.06.2018 of HPCL annexed as annexure with sur-rejoinder affidavit dated
05.06.2018 filed by HPCL in this Hon'ble Court.
(d)(ii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate
order/direction/writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the HPCL that the
said so called policy dated 01.06.2018 has no application to the petitioners &
the petitioners Apprentices be appointed/absorbed to the Entry Level
Management Position as about 250 Entry Level Management Positions are
vacant.
(d)(iii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate
order/direction/writ in the nature of mandamus to recruit/absorb the
petitioner apprentices on the entry level posts of officer/engineer Grade A,
from themselves, without subjecting them to written test, on the basis of
interview and/or quarterly assessments already conducted by respondent
HPCL;"
3. The relevant facts are: The petitioners claim to be graduates in
Engineering, i.e., B.E./B.Tech from Civil & Mechanical streams. The petitioners
contend that those belonging to the general category have scored more than 60%
marks and the petitioners from the reserved category have secured 50% marks at
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
the graduation level. The petitioners setting out the historical background have
stated that in the year 2003-04, the HPCL recruited Graduate Engineer Trainees
directly from the Engineering Colleges, without holding any All India
examination. It was learnt by the petitioners that after successful completion of
one year training by the said trainees, HPCL did not absorb them, which led such
trainees to raise grievances before the government forums to absorb them by
giving them preference under the policy of Government of India in force at the
relevant time, i.e., the policy dated 6 May, 1997. Such trainees are stated to have
been absorbed.
4. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, in the year 2006, it is stated that
the Board of Apprenticeship Training (BOAT) screened & shortlisted the names
of the petitioners & recommended them to the HPCL. The petitioners also
received an e-mail in the month of September 2016 from the HPCL informing
them that they have been shortlisted as eligible candidates appearing in an All
India Competitive Examination known as Computer Based Test (CBT).
5. It is the petitioners' case that the e-mail provided a link for making an
application, which also contained the advertisement for appointment of Graduate
Apprentice Trainees (Engineering) 2016. The advertisement provided for one
year training & the maximum age limit as provided was 25 years. The monthly
stipend was fixed at Rs.25,000/-. The advertisement also provided for All India
Examination (CBT) & the eligibility qualification prescribed was Engineering
Graduation (Mechanical /Civil) from the general category with 60% marks and
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
minimum 50% marks required insofar as the reserved categories are concerned.
The HPCL also provided terms of contract, which according to the petitioners,
postulated that if there is any recruitment in future, then HPCL shall formulate
its own policy for recruiting Apprentices who have completed the period of
Apprenticeship training. The petitioners have contended that the process of
selection as spelled out in the advertisement involved an All India Computer
based Test (CBT), followed by an interview & a Medical Test. The
advertisement also stipulated that if the apprentice accepts gainful employment,
then he will have to leave the Apprenticeship Training and, therefore, there was
an embargo on the petitioners accepting any other employment during the term
of apprenticeship.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that they were influenced to make an
application as HPCL is a Nav Ratna Govt. of India Enterprise, there was a
legitimate expectation of absorption of the petitioners, considering the provisions
of Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act. The petitioners also contend for the
reason that similarly circumstanced Public Sector Undertaking under the Ministry
of Petroleum & Natural Gas like Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), the
apprentices were given regular employment, as per their respective Policy. It is
further contended that the IOCL invited applications from Ex-Apprentices in
respect of its different establishments, like, Haldia Refinery. Thus, the
petitioners' contention is that there was a policy in IOCL to recruit Graduate
Apprentice Trainee and IOCL firstly recruits the Officers/Engineers from All
India GATE Examination upto a particular merit position and the candidates,
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
who are below the said merit position in GATE Examination, such candidates are
recruited as apprentice under the Apprentices Act & thereafter they are absorbed
on regular post of Officers Engineers. The trainees/apprentices were imparted
training for one year and thereafter they were recruited as Officers. The
information in this regard was obtained by the petitioners under the Right to
Information Act, 2005.
7. The petitioners next contend that both the GATE Examination (Graduate
Engineers) & GAT Examination (Graduate Engineers) are All India based
examinations. It is stated that the HPCL resorted to absorb Graduate Apprentice
Trainees (Engineers) for the first time in the year 2016 and as such the All India
Examination was most competitive and tough due to the candidates with highly
meritorious marks being available. It is stated that out of 15,000 screened
candidates, 204 candidates were finally selected and therefore, the success rate
was less than even 1.5%.
8. The petitioners contend that they had made applications against the
advertisement for GAT (Engineers ) issued by HPCL in August/September 2016,
for which 15,000 candidates applied for the said advertisement. It is contended
that on 9 October, 2016, the HPCL conducted the All India Computer Based
Test (CBT), which was cleared by the petitioners and thereafter the petitioners
were called for an interview and medical test. The petitioners were issued
Advisory/Joining Letters in November/December 2016 upto July 2017 on
various dates, indicating different locations where the petitioners would join their
duties as apprentices. The first stream of joining with HPCL started from 29
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
November, 2016 and lasted upto July 2017. The training period stipulated was
one year in respect of such apprentices. The petitioners have contended that the
HPCL was in breach of stipulated working hours insofar as the apprentices are
concerned, as the petitioners were called upon to work in shifts although under
consent letters. The petitioners have made several allegations that the nature of
the appointments were camouflaged by engaging the petitioners as apprentices,
when in fact no such apprenticeship training was imparted to them and the
petitioners were made to work as regular Officers performing duties of a regular
permanent Officer Engineer and paying them a meagre stipend of Rs. 25,000/-
per month.
9. The petitioners also contended that such illegality was repeated after a
similar advertisement was issued by HPCL in July/August 2017, for engaging
Graduate Apprentice Trainees (GAT) and due to shortage of manpower, such
illegal methodology of camouflage appointments was being undertaken. In such
context, briefly the case of the petitioners is that there were vacancies which were
sought to be filled by making such appointments and not by regular
appointments, when such appointments in fact resulted into petitioners'
exploitation, as also loss of their chance to get appointed in regular employment.
10. It is also the petitioners case that on such backdrop, invoking the
provisions of Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act, the petitioners made
representations, i.e., representation dated 21 December, 2017 of Mr. Rohit
Sharma and representation dated 23 February, 2018 of Mr. Ankit Kumar Gautam
made to the HPCL to absorb/recruit the apprentices on the Public Grievance
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
Portal. Also, a mass representation was made to HPCL through an e-mail dated 4
September, 2017.
11. The case of the petitioners is that HPCL is under an absolute mandatory
obligation to absorb/appoint the petitioner apprentices to the Post of officers in
the initial Grade "A" and frame the policy for such purpose as per Section 22(1) of
the Apprentices Act. The petitioners contend that it is their legal right to be
considered for absorption/appointment to such post and it is only to defeat such
legal right, the petitioners were disengaged after completion of one year of the so-
called training. This more particularly when there were vacant posts which were
available with the HPCL, when the rights of the petitioners for regular
appointment were denied. In such context, the petitioners contend that an
advertisement was published in January, 2018 for filling up the post of Grade "A"
officer through the GATE examination. The last date of making application was
16 February, 2018 and thereafter the result of the said examination was to be
published. According to the petitioners, issuance of such advertisement would
deny the rights accrued to the petitioners as apprentices. It is stated that in the
said examination, there was no provision made for appointment of Graduate
Apprentice Trainee (GAT) and no weightage was given to the training given to
them nor any relaxation in age was provided to them. Such action on the part of
HPCL was in total breach of the provisions of the Apprentices Act. The
petitioners, therefore, made several representations not only to HPCL but also to
the Government in the month of February, 2018.
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
12. It is also the petitioners case that the experience of one year which the
petitioners have achieved, has no relevance when it comes to seeking appointment
in non-Petroleum Companies. Also the HPCL is in breach of the provisions of
Section 22 by not framing a policy regarding Graduate Apprentice Trainees as
required under sub-section (1) of Section 22. By an amendment to the petition,
the petitioners have contended that a policy dated 1 June, 2018 which was made
available to the petitioners on 5 June, 2018 as framed by the HPCL was not
applicable to the petitioners and that the said policy dated 1 June, 2018 has
prospective effect and it will not be applicable to the petitioners, who were
qualified/appointed as apprentices in the year 2016, hence, they requested that
under the said policy, the petitioners' rights which accrued prior to the policy
need to be recognized and the petitioners accordingly need to be
absorbed/regularized. It is also contended that the policy dated 1 June, 2018 is
illegal and arbitrary, and defeats the rights of apprentices, as HPCL resorts to only
a lateral way of appointment of Officer Grade "A" Engineer's Post by way of
campus selection. Despite the said policy, there are large number of vacancies and
therefore, it is necessary for HPCL to appoint apprentices like the petitioners.
The HPCL policy as framed is illegal and arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, HPCL in
fact has set out that if there is any recruitment and any policy framed, then the
apprentice would be considered for regular appointment. It is in these
circumstances, the petitioners have prayed that they are entitled to the reliefs as
prayed for.
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
13. Having noted the petitioners case as revealed in the petition, we now
advert to the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the HPCL and further the rejoinder
and other affidavits.
Reply affidavit on behalf of the HPCL
14. Shri Abhishek Datta, Executive Director, Human Resources (HR) of the
HPCL has filed a detailed reply affidavit dated 19 April 2018, dealing with the
petition paragraph wise inter alia contending that the petition is not maintainable
on several grounds including on suppression of facts as also that petitioners are
not entitled to the discretionary reliefs as prayed for when the Court exercises its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This setting out requirements
of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 and the Apprenticeship Rules, 1992.
15. The reply affidavit has stated that in order to implement the amended
provisions of the Apprentices (Amendment) Act, 2014 and Rules, the officials of
HPCL met officials of Board of Apprenticeship Training (Western Region),
Mumbai on 30 June 2016 to enquire and ascertain the modalities for the
implementation of the provisions of the amended Act/Rules. It is stated that in
line with the discussions with the officials of the Board at Mumbai, HPCL
addressed a letter dated 28 July 2016 to the Deputy Central Apprenticeship
Advisor of the said Board requesting him to sponsor a list of Engineers, so that
HPCL may engage them as 'Graduate Apprentice Trainees' for imparting them
Apprenticeship Training, after their shortlisting as per their guidelines/standards,
in the various establishments of the HPCL across the country. It is stated that the
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
said letter of HPCL had annexed a list consisting of the number of employees in
various streams/categories such as Engineers (Managerial staff), Non-Engineers,
(Managerial Staff), Clerical and Labour (Skilled, Semiskilled & Unskilled).
16. It is stated that as per the said list, the total number of employees were
7939 in the marketing establishments of HPCL across the country, as on the date
of the said letter. It is stated that HPCL had requested the Authority to provide a
list of engineers for engaging about 140 Graduate Apprentice Trainees at the
initial phase after their shortlisting. In response to the aforesaid letter of the
HPCL, the Regional Central Apprenticeship Advisor vide its communication
dated 12 August 2016, provided the list of 2026 candidates. It was also
mentioned in the said letter that HPCL was required to engage 312 number of
apprentices for its units located at Mumbai.
17. It is stated that thereafter, HPCL addressed a letter dated 19 August 2016
to the Regional Central Apprenticeship Advisor requesting him to provide /
sponsor the maximum number of engineer graduates (Mechanical/Civil)
registered with the Board, as HPCL wished to engage Graduate Apprenticeship
Trainees, on an all India basis and to give equal opportunities to all eligible
candidates. It is stated that HPCL clearly stated in the said letter that the
Graduate Apprenticeship Trainees (Engineers) will be engaged only "for one
year" and they will be paid stipend in the tune of Rs.25,000/- per month. It is
stated that the applicable stipend for the Graduate Apprenticeship Trainee, as
fixed by the appropriate government was Rs.4984/- only during the relevant
period.
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
18. It is next stated that on 8 September 2016, the Board of Apprenticeship
Training, Western Region, Mumbai provided the list of 49219 candidates of
Mechanical and Civil Engineers for all four regions of the Board of
Apprenticeship Training in the country. It is stated that upon review and
correction of data of 49219 candidates, it was found that there were only 37010
correct record i.e. actual candidates. It is stated that accordingly, vide letter dated
13 September 2016, HPCL informed the status of the said entries to the Deputy
Central Apprenticeship Advisor, Board of Apprenticeship Training.
19. It is next stated that in order to ensure an efficient, time bound and
transparent selection process, HPCL decided to conduct the entire selection
process online. Accordingly, since the selection of candidates was to be made from
the candidates sponsored by the Board of Apprenticeship Training, HPCL sent e-
mails to all 37010 candidates on their e-mail IDs, advising them to login and
apply online. It is stated that the entire procedure was followed in regard to the
online application to be made between 12 September 2016 and 22 September
2016.
20. It is next stated that in response to the e-mails and reminders through e-
mails/SMS, only 11202 candidates submitted their applications online. Further
procedure was followed and admit cards were issued to these candidates. A
Computer Based Test (CBT) was held on 9 October, 2016 and a total of 5945
candidates appeared for the test. It is stated that upon collating the results and
analysis of the same, it was found that very few candidates had scored above the
cut-off marks required to qualify for personal interviews, the cut-off marks being
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
60% for General/OBC-NC and 54% for SC/ST/PWD. It is next contended that
HPCL had already approached all the candidates as sponsored by Board of
Apprenticeship Training, who were registered with them, and that HPCL was
under a statutory obligation as per the Act to engage a certain number of
Apprentices in a financial year. It is stated that HPCL decided to reduce the cut-
off marks in order to get sufficient number of candidates for the interviews in the
ratio of 1:7. It is stated that accordingly 1375 candidates with relaxed norms were
shortlisted for Interviews. Thereafter, interview call letters for all candidates were
hosted on the online link and all shortlisted candidates were advised through e-
mails / SMSs to login to the portal and download the Interview Call Letters. That
the interviews were conducted in 7 cities at Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai,
Vishakhapatnam, Lucknow, Delhi and Bengaluru by 23 Interview Panels
consisting of 97 officers on 21st & 22nd October, 2016. Thereafter an All India
Merit list was drawn as per the prescribed norms by assigning 85% weightage to
'Computer Based Test Scores' and 15% weightage to 'Interviews Scores'. The
said merit list was posted on the website of HPCL, in which total 240 candidates
were finally shortlisted for engaging them as 'Graduate for Apprentices Trainees
for the period of one year. It is stated that subsequent thereto, pursuant to the
said merit list, 'Advisory Letters' for all the 240 candidates were hosted on the
website and intimation e-mails/ SMSs were sent to the candidates advising them
to download the 'Advisory letters'.
21. It is next stated that as required under the said Act/Rules, a contract for
'Apprenticeship Training' was signed between HPCL and the Graduate
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
Apprentice Trainee. It is stated that as per the terms and conditions of the
contract as provided in Schedule VI (Under Rule 6) of the said Rules, the first and
foremost condition was that HPCL shall not be under an obligation to offer
employment to the 'Graduate Apprentice Trainees' by incorporating the
following clause: "It shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer an
employment to the apprentice on completion of period of his apprenticeship
training in his establishment nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the
apprentice to accept an employment under the employer".
22. It is stated that after joining of service by the 240 shortlisted candidates as
'Graduate Apprentice Trainees, for a period of one year, as required under the
Act/Rules, HPCL arranged two days' classroom training on 29 November, 2016
and 30 November, 2016 in Chennai (for 46 GATS), Kolkata (for 33 GATs),
Lucknow (for 64 GATs), Mumbai(for 67 GATs), Mumbai (for 67GATs) and
Vishakhapatnam (for 30 GATs). The candidates were informed of the
requirements inter alia of specific operating procedures. They were also called
upon to undergo practical job training. They were provided with individual
assignment diaries, which they were required to maintain for recording their
learnings. Thereafter the said Graduate Apprentice Trainees were sent to their
assigned establishments of HPCL on 1 December, 2016 for their further 'On Job
Training'.
23. It is next stated that on such backdrop, 41 'Graduate Apprentice Trainees'
were engaged from the 'Waitlist' candidates inter alia against dropouts. It is stated
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
that in order to expedite the payment of stipend to the said GATs, online
modules/software were developed by HPCL to record their attendance and
process the payments of benefits within stipulated timelines. It is stated that
71petitioners are among the 240 & 41 apprentices engaged by HPCL for a period
of one year 'on the Job Apprenticeship Training'. It is stated that the tenure of
Apprenticeship Training' of the petitioners from Sr. No. 1 to 67 was already over
as on April, 2018 and by June/July, 2018, the apprenticeship training of the
petitioners from sr. nos. 68 to 71 was over as per the contracts signed with the
respective petitioners.
24. It is on such premise, the reply affidavit has dealt with the Writ Petition
parawise inter alia to contend that the petitioners are not entitled to seek a relief
as prayed for considering the provisions of Section 20 of the Apprentices Act,
which provides for an alternate remedy to the petitioners.
25. There is a rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner of Mr. Bhanu
Pratap Yaduvanshi disputing the case of the respondents inter alia stating that
HPCL had made a statement before the Court at the hearing of the proceedings
on 20 April, 2018, that the vacancies of the post of Officer Grade 'A' Engineer,
i.e., entry level post in HPCL are about 250 and that the HPCL is in the process
of recruitment and appointment of the said posts through the candidates
appearing in the GATE examination and also through campus placement. It is
stated that Government of India, Department of Public Enterprises had issued a
letter dated 25 February, 2018 setting out the vision, which was addressed to all
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
the departments of the Government as also the Public Sector Undertakings,
which includes HPCL. It is stated that the said letter did not approve of the
recruitment to such entry level posts through GATE examination, as the same was
primarily for higher studies and not for recruitment to jobs/posts in Public Sector
Enterprise, which brought about a situation that the posts remained vacant.
Accordingly the Government has cautioned the Board of the Public Sector
Enterprises that such position would be kept in view, while making recruitment to
CPSEs.
26. It is further stated that in terms of the contract of apprenticeship training
as entered into by HPCL, if there is any recruitment, employer shall formulate its
own policy for recruiting any apprentice who has completed the period of
apprenticeship Training in his establishment as per sub-section (1) of Section 22
of the Apprenticeship Act, which would mandate HPCL to be bound by the
terms and conditions of the contract. It was hence an obligation of the HPCL to
recruit/absorb such apprentices, who completed their training. It is stated that
majority of the petitioners had successfully completed their training with remarks
from the higher superior authorities stating them to be very good/excellent and fit
to be recruited in HPCL. It is hence contended that as per section 22(1) and (2)
of Apprentices Act read with the contract and contractual clause, the petitioners
were entitled for recruitment/absorption on the post of Officer Grade 'A'
Engineers in the HPCL.
27. The rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners is responded on
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
behalf of HPCL by an affidavit of Shri R. Elango, Chief General Manager,
Employee Relations of HPCL. The affidavit contends that the petitioners are
seeking enforcement of provisions of Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act for
claiming employment with HPCL. It is stated that Section 22(1) applies to
Apprentices who have successfully completed their training. It is stated that the
petitioners have contended in the petition that no training was provided at all and
they were made to work like any other employee of the respondents, hence the
petitioners in any event cannot claim the benefit of Section 22(1) of the
Apprentices Act. Hence, on this count alone, the petition deserves to be
dismissed. It is next stated that on the date of the recruitment notification, i.e., 13
September, 2017, the petitioners were not eligible for consideration under Section
22(1) of the Apprentices Act.
28. It is next stated that at the hearing of the present proceedings on 20 April,
2018, HPCL had informed the Court that HPCL was in the process of
formulating a suitable policy as provided in Section 22(1) of Apprentices Act with
regard to the apprentices who would successfully completed the Apprenticeship
training in the Corporation's establishment and accordingly the policy was framed
on 4 May, 2018 , the salient features of which are set out in paragraph 7 of the
affidavit. The contents of paragraph 7 of the affidavit are required to be noted,
which reads thus:
"7. I say and submit that on 04/05/2018, Respondent No. 1 has
formulated the said policy. I say and submit that the salient features of the
said Policy are as under:
(A) RELAXATION WITH REGARD TO ELIGIBILITY:
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
The Graduate Apprentice Trainees (who has successfully
completed Graduate Apprenticeship Training in any of the
establishment of the Corporation) would be eligible to apply for the
regular position in Management Cadre in entry level Grade, as
declared from time to time.
While computing the eligibility of a candidate (Graduate
Apprentice Trainee) who would apply for said regular position in the
Corporation, relaxation in age would be given to the extent of the
period for which the concerned applicant Graduate Apprentice
Trainee had undergone Graduate apprenticeship training in any of
the Corporation's establishment, not exceeding one year.
It is also clarified that except the aforesaid relaxation
pertaining to age as has been specifically mentioned, the Graduate
Apprentice Trainee applying against said regular position in the
services of Corporation, needs to meet the other eligibility criteria as
mentioned in the advertisement / notification.
In the event, any apprentice applies against any regular
vacancy / position in the Corporation which requires post
qualification experience, the period for which such apprentice had
successfully undergone the training in the Corporation would be
reckoned.
(B) RELAXATION WITH REGARD TO PROCESS OF SELECTION:
In the event, any Graduate Apprentice Trainee (who had
successfully completed apprenticeship in the Corporation) appears in
the qualifying test (GATE exam, as prevalent presently for recruiting
Engineers), such Graduate Apprentice Trainee would be accorded
additional 5% of the marks, he secures in the GATE exam. Such
grace marks alongwith the marks secured by the candidates in the
GATE exam shall be reckoned while shortlisting candidates for
subsequent stage of selection ie. group discussions / tasks and
interview. The final merit list of the successful candidates would be
drawn reckoning such grace marks accorded in the GATE Score while
shortlisting the candidates post-written test.
The reservations in line with the applicable Presidential
Directives for the aforesaid selection process and other extant
recruitment norms, at the relevant point of time / selection, would
continue to be applicable during the process of selection /
recruitment."
29. It is hence stated that since HPCL has formulated the aforesaid policy,
which provides for preference to the Graduate Apprentice Trainee in its
employment, there is no other obligation on part of HPCL under the Apprentices
Act to grant any permanent employment to the petitioners of their absorption.
Also, for this reason, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
30. On behalf of the Government of India, an affidavit of Chandrakant M.
Diggewadi, Assistant Director is placed on record to contend that the petitioners
were registered as Graduate Apprentices under the provisions of the Apprentices
Act for the period of one year. It is stated that the apprentices have to undergo
the training, as per the training programme chalked out by the establishment.
That one year of apprenticeship training does not guarantee any job/appointment
after completion of training. It is stated that as per Section 22(1) of the
Apprentices Act, 'Every employer shall formulate its own policy for recruiting any
apprentice who has completed the period of apprenticeship training in the
establishment." It is further stated that communication of Ministry of Human
Resource Development, Government of India dated 6 May, 1997 did not state
anything about the absorption after completing apprenticeship training of one
year. It is further stated that on terms and conditions of the contract of
Apprenticeship for Graduate/Technician apprentices, it is clearly mentioned that
it shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer an employment to
the apprentice on completion of the period of his apprenticeship training in the
establishment.
31. On the backdrop of the aforesaid pleadings, we have heard learned counsel
for the parties.
Submission on behalf of the petitioners
32. Mr. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners has made extensive
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
submissions. He has reiterated the submissions as urged by the petitioners in the
memo of the petition as noted by us hereinabove. It is his submission that a
harmonious reading of Section 22(1) and (2) of the Apprentices Act leads to the
inescapable conclusion, that the petitioners who had successfully completed
apprenticeship training had a legal right to be considered for appointment to the
post of Graduate Engineers. It is submitted that the specific case of the
petitioners is that HPCL having not framed any policy of recruitment of
apprentices as contemplated under Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act. That
such inaction on the part of HPCL in not framing a policy of recruitment does
not negate the legal right of the petitioners to be considered for regularization on
the post of Graduate Engineers - Group 'A'. It is hence submitted that the Board
of Directors cannot frustrate the legal statutory right accrued to the petitioners
under Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act, under the garb of their inaction in
not framing the said policy.
33. It is next submitted that prior to 2014 [i.e. before the 2014 Amendment],
Sections 22(1) and 22(2) of the Apprentices Act, were contradictory to each other
inasmuch as Section 22(1) provided that an employer is not under an obligation
to provide employment to an apprentice trainee, and further in Section 22(2), a
non obstante clause was provided to the effect that when there was a contract of
service between the employer and employee, the employer is bound to provide
employment to an apprentice. It is submitted that however, in view of the 2014
amendment, the situation drastically changed inasmuch as Section 22(1) provided
for consideration of an apprentice for a permanent employment, as per the policy
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
framed by an employer, and hence, the legal right of an apprentice of such
consideration of appointment, as per the policy had accrued to the petitioners-
apprentices in view of the fact that Section 22 (2) became in conformity with
Section 22 (1), for the reason that even if an apprentice failed to get employment
as per the policy, and if there is a contract of service between employer and
apprentice for giving employment, then despite the failure of such an apprentice
to get an employment as per Section 22 (1), he is entitled for employment as per
section 22 (2) of the Act. In supporting such contention, reliance is placed on the
decisions in Narender Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 1, UP State Road
Transport Corporation & Anr. vs Uttar Pradesh Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs
Berozgar Sangh & Ors,2 and Ex-Apprentices Association Vs Union of India &
Anr3.
34. It is next submitted that the action of HPCL in not framing any policy and
not considering the petitioners against the available vacancies was arbitrary, illegal
and in contravention to the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of the India.
This is for the reason that other similar corporations like IOCL framed its policy
for recruiting similar Graduate Apprentices Trainees (GAT) as mandated under
Section 22 (1) of the Apprentices Act and in fact appointed them on the post of
Engineers Group 'A' in the organization after successful completion of training.
However, HPCL avoided the same although there was an obligation on HPCL to
frame such policy. The reason being that for the first time in the year 2016, HPCL
1 1985 (1) SCC 130
2 (1995)2 SCC 1
3 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 33612
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
advertised 204 posts of Graduate Apprentices Trainee (GAT) on which the
petitioners were appointed and had completed their training successfully. It is
hence submitted that the action of HPCL in not appointing a single GAT from
2016 till date to the post of Graduate Engineers Group 'A', is arbitrary.
35. It is next submitted that the policy dated 1 June 2018 framed by the HPCL
had no application to the petitioners and the same has been framed arbitrarily
and with ulterior motives. It is next submitted that the said policy dated 1 June
2018 has no application to the advertisement of the year 2016 and completion of
training by the petitioners in the year 2017, and in any event such policy decision
cannot be retrospectively applied. It is submitted that the petitioners are 71 in
number and therefore, they are required to be considered for appointment to the
post of Graduate Engineer Group A. It is next submitted that the HPCL's
contention that the contract between the HPCL and the apprentices does not
contain the recruitment of apprentices, as per policy, in terms of Section 22(1), is
not correct inasmuch as the proviso below sub-section (1) of Section 22 stipulated
an obligation on the HPCL to formulate its own policy in granting employment
to the apprentices, who have completed the period of apprenticeship training in
the establishment. It is next submitted that such obligation would be required to
be complied when there was a vacancy, and as admittedly there were large number
of vacancies with the HPCL, merely because HPCL failed to formulate any policy,
the petitioners could not have been deprived of the opportunity of a permanent
employment with the HPCL. The petitioners have stated in the petition that they
have successfully completed the training and are entitled to be considered for
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
appointment as per Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act. It is submitted that the
HPCL's contention that it was filling up the post through GATE examination,
when the same was discouraged by the Government of India, this was clear from
the advertisement issued in the year 2021, 2023 and 2025.
36. It is next submitted that the right of the petitioners to seek a relief of
regularization flows from Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act coupled with the
terms and conditions of the contract, which is independent of whether HPCL
recruits the posts through GATE examination or otherwise. It is submitted that
the petitioners are more meritorious, having passed the B.E. examination with
more than 60% marks, and having stood in the merit in the apprenticeship
competitive examination and interview, hence HPCL's case in regard to attracting
the best talent, was also factually incorrect. It is next submitted that the HPCL is
recruiting the posts in question by conducting a Competitive Examination (CBT)
and interview akin to the selection process as undergone by the petitioners, and
therefore, the petitioners ought not to be subjected to further examination. It is
next contended that the petitioners in frustration made an argument that they
have not been imparted apprenticeship training to the petitioners, this is factually
not correct as the petitioners have been granted certificate by the HPCL for
successful completion of apprenticeship training, as also in case of some of the
candidates the remark "Fit to recruit in HPCL" is also given. The petitioners had
also became entitled for a preference in the employment, as 50% posts became
vacant for them. It is accordingly submitted that the petition be allowed.
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
37. On behalf of the respondents, learned Counsel Mr.Lancy D'Souza has
made the following submissions:-
At the outset, Mr. D'Souza referred to the detailed reply affidavit filed on
behalf of the HPCL, to contend that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief
in the present proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, much less
of the nature of any absorption and of any permanent employment. According to
Mr. D'Souza, such relief is contrary to the tenets of law which are required to be
followed in the recruitments to be made by any public sector undertaking, in
making regular appointments. It is submitted that even the general conditions of
the advertisement issued by the HPCL clearly stipulated that they did not give
any commitment of providing permanent/ temporary employment to apprentices
on successful completion of apprenticeship period. Thus, there was no contract
between the petitioners and the respondent to provide employment to the
apprentices on completion of their apprenticeship.
38. Dr. D'souza had drawn the Court's attention to the averments in
paragraphs 1, 15, 16, 18 of the Writ Petition and ground 14 thereof,to contend
that the petitioners themselves claim that they have not undertaken training and
therefore, they cannot claim preferential rights of employment with the
respondent. It is submitted that the pleadings and prayers are at variance and
mutually destructive.
39. It is next submitted that as the petitioner's case is that there is
contravention of the contract of apprenticeship, the remedy for such alleged
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
violation is as provided in Section 30(2)(d) of the Apprentices Act, as also there is
an alternative remedy available to the petitioners under Section 20 of the
Apprentices Act which provides for settlement of disputes by approaching the
appropriate forum. It is next submitted that the HPCL being an employer has a
prerogative to decide the qualifications and the competitive examinations that
prospective employees need to undergo and accordingly HPCL decides to recruit
officers through GATE Examinations. It is submitted that the petitioner Nos.1 to
67 have contended that already they have completed their training well before the
GATE 2018 examination and petitioner Nos.68 to 71 were to complete their one
year training in the month of June/July, 2018, and thus, the petitioners were not
prevented from appearing in GATE 2018 examinations. It is next contended that
even the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) has also issued an advertisement for
recruitment of Engineers/Officers through GATE 2018.
40. Mr. D'souza has next submitted that the contention that the HPCL has
violated the Apprentices Act in the matter of engaging and training the
petitioners, is denied by HPCL in totality. It is contended that the HPCL has
formulated the required policy under Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act with
effect from 1 June 2018 providing for relaxation in age to the extent of the period
for which the trainee had undergone apprenticeship training not exceeding one
year. It is contended that the policy also provides for granting of additional 5% of
the marks secured in GATE examination as grace marks. It is submitted that the
petitioners, in these circumstances, would not be entitled to any reliefs.
41. In supporting his contentions, Mr. D'souza has placed reliance on the
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
decision of the Supreme Court in "Chairman/Managing Director, Mahanadi
Coalfields Ltd. vs. S. Behra4".
42. Having heard learned counsel for the partings and having perused the
records, we proceed to record our reasons.
Reasons and conclusion
43. At the outset, we may observe that the principal contention of the
petitioners is in the context of appointment/absorption to the regular posts grade
(A) Officer, as seen from prayer clause (a) & (c) (supra). By an amended prayer,
the policy dated 1 June 2018 is assailed on the ground that it is not applicable to
the petitioners who were appointed as apprentice prior thereto. The petitioners,
accordingly, also have prayed for dispensing the petitioners with any written test
and granting appointment only on the basis of their assessment already having
taken place.
44. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in pursuance of an advertisement
issued by the HPCL for appointment of Graduate Apprentice Trainees (in 2016)
applied for appointment as apprenticeship, which was for a training period of one
year and a maximum age limit provided was 25 years, with a monthly stipend of
Rs.25,000/-. The petitioners contend that they were selected, and appropriate
appointment orders were issued to them. The petitioners who are 71 in number
are part of the 204 candidates who were finally selected. Considering the nature
of controversy, we may note the contents of the advertisement issued by the
4 2005(2) SCC 396
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
HPCL. The relevant extract of the advertisement reads thus:
"ENGAGEMENT OF GRADUATE APPRENTICE TRAINEES
(ENGINEERING) AS PER THE APPRENTICES ACT, 1961
HPCL is a Government of India Enterprise under the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas (MOP&NG), Government of India. It is engaged in Refining,
Storage, Distribution and Marketing of Petroleum Products. HPCL's has two
major Refineries at Mumbai and Vishakhapatnam and vast marketing network
consisting of Zonal offices, Regional Offices, Terminals, Pipeline networks,
Aviation Service Stations, LPG Bottling Plants, Inland Relay Depots etc. spread
across India.
HPCL. proposes to engage Graduate Apprentice Trainees (Civil / Mechanical
Engineering) at Locations spread across India, for a period of one year as per
provisions of Apprentices Act. 1961 and Rules thereof.
Engagement of Graduate Apprentices (Engineering)
Post Name Age Limit Qualification criterion Monthly
Stipend
Graduate Min. 18 yrs. And Engineering Graduation in
Apprentices max. 25 yrs. As (Mechanical Civil only)
Engineering on 01.09.2916 with 60% aggregate marks
(Only Civil/ Age relaxation by all semestersyears. 50% for Rs. 25,000/-
Mechanical 5 yrs. For SC/ST, SC/ST/OBC & PWD
Engineering) 3 yrs. ForOBC- candidates.
NC and 10 yrs.
For PWD
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
Only Indian nationals are eligible to apply.
Engineering Graduates in Civil / Mechanical streams who have not completed 3
years after date of completion / passing the qualifying examinations are only
eligible to apply.
Candidates belonging to General Category must have 60% aggregate whereas
candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC shall have 50% aggregate marks in all
years/semesters in the qualifying examination.
All the qualifications specified above should be recognized by Board of Technical
Education /UGC/AICTE
Age Limit: Minimum 18 years and maximum 25 years as on 01.09.2016. Max.
Age relaxation by 5 yrs. for SC/ST, 3 yrs. for OBC and 10 yrs. for PWD
candidates.
Relaxations in Eligibility criterion, Age and Reservations will be as per
Government Guidelines /Apprentices Act, 1961.
Candidates who have been engaged previously as Apprentice or are undergoing
Apprenticeship training elsewhere under the Apprentices Act, 1961 are not
eligible to apply.
Candidates who have got one year or more of work experience are not eligible to
apply.
SELECTION METHODOLOGY
Candidates fulfilling all the above mentioned eligibility criteria will be called for
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
Computer Based Written Test (CBT) and only the candidates passing the CBT
will be called for the Personal Interview.
Management reserves the right to restrict the number of candidates to be called
for Personal Interviews.
While drawing merit list of successful candidates, 85% weightage would be given
to written test and 15% to Personal Interview.
Final appointment would be subject to clearing the Medical Test as per HPCL
standards and Submission of all documents / certificates as proof of Age,
Qualifications, Caste, Medical certificate of PWD and Medical fitness etc...as may
be applicable.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
The engagement will be governed by the Apprentices Act, 1961/Apprentices
Amendment Act, 1973,
The engagement as Apprentice will be purely for training for one year only and it
will be terminated on completion of one year.
HPCL does not give any commitment on providing permanent/temporary
employment to Apprentices on successful completion of Apprenticeship period.
The place of engagement as Apprentice will be at locations spread across India.
Candidates selected as Apprentice shall be paid monthly stipend of
Rs.25000/-/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only).
Any request for change in Category (UR/SC/ST/OBC-NC/ PWD) once filled in
the Online Application Form, will not be considered and accordingly
concession/relaxation applicable will not be extended.
The reserved category candidates are required to submit the Caste/ PWD
certificate/s in prescribed format applicable as present after logging in the below
link.http://jobs.hpcl.co.in/Recruit New/login form.jsp"
(emphasis supplied)
45. In the context of the prayers for absorption, the provisions of the
Apprentices Act are required to be considered. As seen from the long title of the
Act, it is an enactment which provides for the regulation and control of training of
apprentices and matters connected thereunder. The "Statement of Objects and
Reasons" of the Act is required to be noted which reads thus:
"Statement of Objects and Reasons, "The question of undertaking legislation for
regulating the training of apprentices in industry has been under the
consideration of the Government for a long time. Expert committees which went
into the question have recommended such legislation. Although certain
establishments in the public and private sectors have been carrying out
programmes of training of skilled workers on a systematic basis, industry in
general has not as yet fully organised such programmes. In the context of the Five
Year Plan and the large scale industrial development of the country, there is an
increasing demand for skilled craftsmen. The Government consider that it is
necessary fully to utilise the facilities available for the training of apprentices and
to ensure their training in accordance with the programmes, standards and syllabi
drawn up by expert bodies. The Bill is intended to give effect to these objectives."
46. There were substantive amendments to the Act by Amendment Act 41 of
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
1986, Amendment Act, 37 of 2007, Amendment Act 29 of 2014. Each of these
amendments has independent statement of objects and reasons which clearly
demonstrate that the object and intention of the legislation is to facilitate training
of apprentices in the industry and regulation and control in that regard, and not in
relation to creating/granting any regular employment in the public sector
undertaking. The statement of objects and reasons of the amendment Act 29 of
2014 also indicates that it is for the employers to formulate their own policy for
recruiting apprentices.
47. It is with such legislative object and intention, the provisions of the Act
would be required to be considered. Section 2 is the dictionary clause which
defines 'Apprentice' under Section 2(aa) to mean a person who is undergoing
apprenticeship training under a contract for apprenticeship. The definition of
'apprenticeship training' therein is provided for in Section 2(aaa). The said
definitions are required to be noted which read thus:
"2. Definitions. ------
-----
(aa) "apprentice" means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in
pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship;
(aaa) "apprenticeship training" means a course of training in any industry or
establishment undergone in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship and
under prescribed terms and conditions which may be different for different
categories of apprentices;"
48. A 'graduate or a technician apprentice' is defined under Section 2(j). A
'technician (vocational) apprentice' is defined under Section 2(pp), and a 'trade
apprentice' is defined under Section 2(q). The said definitions are also required to
be noted which read thus:
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
"2(j) "graduate or technician apprentice" means an apprentice who holds, or
is undergoing training in order that he may hold a degree or diploma in
engineering or non-engineering or technology or equivalent qualification
granted by any institution recognised by the Government and undergoes
apprenticeship training in any designated trade;
2(pp) "technician (vocational) apprentice" means an apprentice who holds or
is undergoing training in order that he may hold a certificate in vocational
course involving two years of study after the completion of the secondary
stage of school education recognized by the All-India Council and undergoes
apprenticeship training in any designated trade;
2(q) "trade apprentice" means an apprentice who undergoes apprenticeship
training in any designated trade;"
49. The scheme of the legislation as contained in its different chapters can also
be examined. Chapter-II of the Act provides for 'Apprentices and their training',
making provisions for qualifications for being engaged as an apprentice in Section
3. Section 3-A provides for "reservation of training places for the Schedule Castes
and the Schedule Tribes in designated trades'. Section 3-B provides for
'reservation of training places for Other Backward Classes in designated trades'.
Section 4 provides for 'Contract of Apprenticeship'. Section 5 provides for
'Novation of Contract of Apprenticeship'. Section 6 provides for 'period of
apprenticeship training'. Section 7 provides for 'termination of apprenticeship
contract'. Section 4, 5, 6 & 7 read thus:
"[4. Contract of apprenticeship. - (1) No person shall be engaged as an
apprentice to undergo apprenticeship training in a designated trade unless such
person or, if he is a minor, his guardian has entered into a contract of
apprenticeship with the employer.
(2) The apprenticeship training shall be deemed to have commenced on
the date on which the contract of apprenticeship has been entered into under
sub-section (1).
(3) Every contract of apprenticeship may contain such terms and
conditions as may be agreed to by the parties to the contract:
Provided that no such term or condition shall be inconsistent with any
provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder.
(4) Every contract of apprenticeship entered into under sub-section (1)
shall be sent by the employer within thirty days to the Apprenticeship Adviser
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
until a portal-site is developed by the Central Government, and thereafter the
details of contract of apprenticeship shall be entered on the portal-site within
seven days, for verification and registration.
(4-A) In the case of objection in the contract of apprenticeship, the
Apprenticeship Adviser shall convey the objection to the employer within fifteen
days from the date of its receipt.
(4-B) The Apprenticeship Adviser shall register the contract of
apprenticeship within thirty days from the date of its receipt.]
(6) Where the Central Government, after consulting the Central
Apprenticeship Council, makes any rule varying the terms and conditions of
apprenticeship training of any category of apprentices undergoing such training,
then, the terms and conditions of every contract of apprenticeship relating to
that category of apprentices and subsisting immediately before the making of
such rule shall be deemed to have been modified accordingly.]
5. Novation of contract of apprenticeship.- Where an employer with whom a
contract of apprenticeship has been entered into, is, for any reason, unable to
fulfil his obligations under the contract and with the approval of the
Apprenticeship Adviser it is agreed between the employer, the apprentice or his
guardian and any other employer that the apprentice shall be engaged as an
apprentice under the other employer for the unexpired portion of the period of
apprenticeship training, the agreement, on registration with the Apprenticeship
Adviser, shall be deemed to be the contract of apprenticeship between the
apprentice or his guardian and the other employer, and on and from the date of
such registration, the contract of apprenticeship with the first employer shall
terminate and no obligation under that contract shall be enforceable at the
instance of any party to the contract against the other party thereto.
[5-A. Regulation of optional trade. The qualification, period of
apprenticeship training, holding of test, grant of certificate and other conditions
relating to the apprentices in optional trade shall be such as may be prescribed.
5-B. Engagement of apprentices from other States. The employer may
engage apprentices from other States for the purpose of providing
apprenticeship training to the apprentices.]
6. Period of apprenticeship training. The period of apprenticeship training,
which shall be specified in the contract of apprenticeship, shall be as follows:-
(a) in the case of trade apprentices] who, having undergone institutional
training in a school or other institution recognised by the National Council,
have passed the trade tests for examinations] conducted by [that Council or by
an institution recognised by that Council], the period of apprenticeship training
shall be such as may be prescribed];
"[(aa) in the case of trade apprentices who, having undergone institutional
training in a school or other institution affiliated to or recognised by a Board or
State Council of Technical Education or any other authority or courses approved
under any scheme which the Central Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette specify in this behalf, have passed the trade tests or
examinations conducted by that Board or State Council or authority or by any
other agency authorised by the Central Government, the period of
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
apprenticeship training shall be such as may be prescribed;]
(b) in the case of other [trade apprentices], the period of apprenticeship
training shall be such as may be prescribed;
[(c) in the case of graduate or technician apprentices, [technician
(vocational) apprentices], the period of apprenticeship training shall be such as
may be prescribed.]
7. Termination of apprenticeship contract.-(1) The contract of
apprenticeship shall terminate on the expiry of the period of apprenticeship
training.
(2) Either party to a contract of apprenticeship may make an application to
the Apprenticeship Adviser for the termination of the contract, and when such
application is made, shall send by post a copy thereof to the other party to the
contract.
(3) After considering the contents of the application and the objections,
writing, terminate the contract, if he is satisfied that the parties to the contract or
any of them have or has failed to carry out the terms and conditions of the
contract and that it is desirable in the interests of the parties or any of them to
terminate the same:
Provided that where a contract is terminated -
(a) for failure on the part of the employer to carry out the terms and
conditions of the contract, the employer shall pay to the apprentice such
compensation as may be prescribed;
(b) for such failure on the part of the apprentice, the apprentice or his
guardian shall refund to the employer as cost of training such amount as may be
determined by the Apprenticeship Adviser.
[(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this
Act, where a contract of apprenticeship has been terminated by the
Apprenticeship Adviser before the expiry of the period of apprenticeship
training and a new contract of apprenticeship is being entered into with a new
employer, the Apprenticeship Adviser may, if he is satisfied that the contract of
apprenticeship with the previous employer could not be completed because of
any lapse on the part of the previous employer, permit the period of
apprenticeship training already undergone by the apprentice with his previous
employer to be included in the period of apprenticeship training to be
undertaken with the new employer.]"
50. Chapter-II also makes other provisions, inter alia in regard to the
obligations of employers, obligations of apprentices, and most importantly,
recognizing the status of apprentices to be "trainees" and not workers as provided
for in Section 18. Section 20 provides for 'settlements of disputes'. The provisions
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
of Section 18 and 20 read thus:
"18. Apprentices are trainees and not workers. -Save as otherwise provided in this
Act, -
(a) every apprentice undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated trade in
an establishment shall be a trainee and not a worker; and
(b) the provisions of any law with respect to labour shall not apply to or in
relation to such apprentice.
.....
20. Settlement of disputes. -(1) Any disagreement or dispute between an shall be
referred to the Apprenticeship Adviser for decision.
(2) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Apprenticeship Adviser
under sub-section (1) may, within thirty days from the date of communication to
him of such decision, prefer an appeal against the decision to the Apprenticeship
Council and such appeal shall be heard and determined by a Committee of that
Council appointed for the purpose.
(3) The decision of the Committee under sub-section (2) and subject only
to such decision, the decision of the Apprenticeship Adviser under sub-section
(1) shall be final."
51. In the context of the dispute in hand, the most debated provision is
Section 22 which is in relation to 'offer and acceptance of employment' for
recruiting any apprentice who has completed the period of apprenticeship
training in his establishment. The said provision is required to be noted which
reads thus:
"22. Offer and acceptance of employment-[(1) Every employer shall formulate
its own policy for recruiting any apprentice who has completed the period of
apprenticeship training in his establishment.]
(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), where there is a condition in a
contract of apprenticeship that the apprentice shall, after the successful
completion of the apprenticeship training, serve the employer, the employer
shall, on such completion, be bound to offer suitable employment to the
apprentice, and the apprentice shall be bound to serve the employer in that
capacity for such period and on such remuneration as may be specified in the
contract:
Provided that where such period or remuneration is not, in the opinion of the
Apprenticeship Adviser, reasonable, he may revise such period or remuneration
so as to make it reasonable, and the period or remuneration so revised shall be
deemed to be the period or remuneration agreed to between the apprentice and
the employer."
(emphasis supplied)
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
52. Insofar as the terms and conditions of the contract of apprenticeship in
regard to the petitioners employment are concerned, the following conditions are
relevant and on which submissions were advanced on behalf of the parties:
"SCHEDULE VI
(See Rule 6)
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT OF
APPRENTICESHIP FOR GRADUATE, TECHNICIAN AND TECHNICIAN
(VOCATIONAL) APPRENTICES
1. The period of training shall be one year (in the case of Sandwich Students, the
period of training shall be as stipulated in the curriculum).
2. It shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer an employment
to the apprentice on completion of period of his apprenticeship training in his
establishment nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to accept an
employment under the employer.
Provided that if there is any recruitment, employer shall formulate its own policy
for recruiting any apprentice who has completed the period of apprenticeship
training in his establishment in terms of sub-section (1) of section (22) of the
Act."
(emphasis supplied)
53. It is thus clear that in the advertisement itself the applying
candidates/petitioners were given clear indication that they were being engaged as
apprentice trainees at different locations spread across India and for a period of
one year as per the provisions of the Apprentices Act with a monthly stipend of
Rs.25,00/-. It was also categorically informed that HPCL does not give any
commitment for providing permanent/temporary employment to apprentices on
successful completion of the apprenticeship period. Under Schedule VI Rule 6,
which is part of the terms and conditions of the contract of apprenticeship, the
apprentice must be a graduate technician, and technician (vocational) apprentice
which was part of the advertisement published by HPCL for appointment of
petitioners as apprentice. It was also clearly provided that the period of training
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
shall be one year and that it shall not be obligatory on the part of the HPCL to
offer an employment to an apprentice on completion of period of apprenticeship
training in the establishment. Further, nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the
apprentice to accept an employment under the employer. It was also specifically
provided that if there is any recruitment, the employer (HPCL) would formulate
its own policy, for recruiting any apprentice who has completed the period of
apprenticeship training in the establishment in terms of sub-section (1) of Section
22 of the Apprentices Act. Also, Section 22 clearly provides that every employer
(in the present case the HPCL) shall formulate its own policy for recruiting any
apprentice who has completed the period of apprenticeship training in the
establishment and only where there is a condition in the contract of
apprenticeship that the apprentice shall, after the successful completion of
apprenticeship training, serve the employer, the employer shall, on such
completion, be bound to offer suitable employment to the apprentice, and the
apprentice shall be bound to serve the employer in that capacity for such period
and on such remuneration as may be specified in the contract. With a further
proviso, that where such period or remuneration is not, in the opinion of the
Apprenticeship Advisor, reasonable, he may revise such period or remuneration so
as to make it reasonable, and the period of remuneration so revised shall be deem
to be the period or remuneration agreed to between the apprenticeship and the
employer, as provided for under sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Apprentices
Act. Thus, even under sub-section (2), it does not categorically speak about a
regular/permanent employment but only a contract post completion of the
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
apprenticeship training.
54. Thus, the petitioners' contention that there was any legal right or
entitlement for the petitioners to be absorbed is totally untenable, considering the
specific provisions of the Apprentices Act as also the terms and conditions of their
appointment as apprentice. The petitioners contention is premised on the proviso
to clause (2) of the Schedule-VI Rule 6 namely "terms and conditions of the
contract of apprenticeship for a graduate, technician and technician (vocational)
apprentices" wherein the proviso under clause (2) states that provided if there is
any recruitment, employer shall formulate its own policy for recruiting any
apprentice who has completed the period of apprenticeship training in its
establishment in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act. Thus, there is
no legislative mandate in regard to any mandatory policy to be framed that those
who are appointed as apprentices, on the completion of the apprenticeship would
be entitled for any permanent employment or absorption, in the event the posts
are available.
55. In the context of Section 22 and the policy as framed by the HPCL, it is
the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were legally entitled of being
granted a permanent employment. In our clear opinion, neither Section 22
recognizes any such legal right on any apprentice appointed by HPCL, nor it
creates any statutory obligation on the employer (HPCL) to mandatorily absorb
the apprentices who are appointed by such employer. This has been recognized by
the Government of India in the communication dated 15 February 2018, in reply
to the grievance from 79 graduate apprentices, to make a policy for mandatory
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
employment of apprentices, the said letter is required to be noted which reads
thus :
"No. MSDE (DGT)-11(1)/2017
Government of India
Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship Directorate General of
Training
2nd Floor PTI Building, Sansad Marg
New Delhi, Dated: February 15,2018
To
Shri Rohit Agarwal, Advocate
J-132, 2nd Floor, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi-110027
Subject: Mass grievance from 79 Graduate Apprentice Trainee (GAT) against
the gross violation of the apprentices Act, 1961 and make policy for
mandatory employment of apprentices-regarding.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your letter on subject cited above.
In this regard, it is to inform you that the provision has been made in sub
section (1) of Section 22 of the Apprentice Act, 1961 that every employer shall
formulate its own policy for recruiting any apprentice who has completed the
period of apprenticeship training in his establishment. Therefore, formulation of
any policy relates to apprentices lies with the organization.
About the training aspects, the same representation is forwarded to
Ministry of Human Resources Development for further necessary action, as the
same is under the jurisdiction of Ministry of Human Resources Development."
56. Thus in the absence of any legal right, as to how the petitioners' could
claim any absorption or permanent employment to be granted by HPCL cannot
be understood. It is hence surprising as to how the petitioners could at all
maintain such prayers. This more particularly when the petitioners were
otherwise qualified to participate in a regular recruitment process undertaken by
the HPCL or any other public sector enterprises. It was always open to them to
participate in such recruitment process. However, merely as the petitioners were
appointed as apprentices, this would not per se confer any legal right of any
absorption. In fact recognizing such legal right would be recognizing a backdoor
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
entry in the employment of the public sector undertaking which is required to
satisfy the basic tenets of Article 14, and 16 of the Constitution.
57. We accordingly find no merit in any of the contentions as urged on behalf
of the petitioners. Thus under the scheme, no legal rights of the apprentices can
be recognized. We accordingly find much substance in the contention as urged on
behalf of the respondents in opposing the petition.
58. Now coming to the decisions which are being relied on behalf of the
petitioners. Insofar as Narender Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.(supra),
UP State Road Transport Corporation vs Uttar Pradesh Parivahan Nigam
Shishukhs Berojgar Sangh(supra) and Ex-Apprentices Association Vs Union of
India(supra), decisions are concerned there is no dispute in regard to what has
been held in the said cases. However, in the facts of the present case, the decisions
are squarely not applicable as discussed hereunder.
59. The petitioners' reliance on the decision in Narender Kumar v. State of
Punjab (supra) is not well founded in the facts of the present case. In such
decision, the issue before the Supreme Court concerned the interpretation of a
specific clause in the contract of apprenticeship which expressly provided that the
apprentice "shall be absorbed" in the department on successful completion of
training, if vacancies existed. The Court interpreted this clause as creating a
binding obligation under Section 22(2) of the Apprentices Act, thereby
mandating absorption upon availability of vacancies. In the present case, however,
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
no such clause exists in the contract as entered between the petitioners and the
HPCL On the contrary, the terms of apprenticeship specifically provide that it
shall not be obligatory on the employer to offer employment.
60. In UP State Road Transport Corporation v. UP Parivahan Nigam
Shishukhs Berojgar Sangh (supra), the issue before the Supreme Court concerned
the directions issued by the Allahabad High Court granting preference in
employment to trained apprentices in the light of certain government circulars
and administrative instructions. In such context, the Supreme Court observed
that, other things being equal, trained apprentices may be given preference over
direct recruits, particularly having regard to the governmental circulars and policy
considerations. However, the Court clarified that under Section 22(1) of the
Apprentices Act it was not obligatory on the part of the employer to offer
employment to an apprentice on completion of training. The Court further held
that there was no clear and unequivocal promise of automatic absorption and,
therefore, the principle of promissory estoppel was not attracted. The
observations were made in the peculiar factual background of that Corporation
and the administrative framework governing it. Hence, this decision would not be
applicable to the present case.
61. In Ex-Apprentices Association vs. Union of India (supra), the Madras
High Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by an association of ex-
apprentices of a Cordite Factory who contended that, after the 2014 amendment
to Section 22, the employer was obligated to formulate a policy before proceeding
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
with fresh recruitment to Group 'C' and 'B' posts. The grievance was that, despite
the amendment making it obligatory on every employer to formulate its own
policy for recruiting apprentices who had completed training, no such scheme had
been framed and yet recruitment notifications had been issued. In that context,
the Court observed that unless a scheme is framed, the members of the petitioner
association have no right to claim absorption in regular posts, and therefore
directed the employer to formulate a policy and frame a scheme in tune with
Section 22(1), with selection thereafter to be made based on merit and by
following the reservation rules and other conditions. Thus, even in such case, no
automatic absorption was granted, only a direction to frame a policy was issued in
light of the employer's inaction post-amendment. In the present case, when a
policy has in fact been framed and the contract itself negates any obligation of
absorption, the said decision does not advance the petitioners' claim.
62. We also do not find any substance in the contention as urged on behalf of
the petitioners that the policy of the respondents dated 1 June 2018 is in any
manner illegal, as it does not provide for any permanent absorption being granted
in favour of the apprentices. There is no mandate under the provisions of sub-
section (1) of Section 22 of the Apprentices Act, that such policy necessarily
would require the employer to grant mandatory absorption to every apprentice as
appointed by it. Such contention as urged on behalf of the petitioners would
militate against the clear language of sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act,
which itself does not create any embargo for the employer to have its own policy,
if so framed.
901.WP3767_2018.DOC
63. Even assuming that a policy is framed, no policy, de hors the principles of
an appropriate selection procedure as known to law to be followed, can create any
legal right of appointment in any apprentices. The reasons being that mere
completion of apprenticeship is only an added advantage to any such
participation, however, the rigors of the rules, regulations and requirements
necessary for permanent appointment as determined by the employer, in no
manner can be diluted, even if such apprentices are considered for recruitment on
permanent posts.
64. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the petition. It
is accordingly rejected. However, dismissal of this petition would not create any
embargo on the petitioners participating in the selection process as initiated by
the HPCL and/or in any other public sector enterprises and to participate in any
selection process.
65. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/03/2026 21:10:15
