Madras High Court
J.Saravanan vs Neyveli Lignite Corporation ... on 15 September, 2023
W.P.No.27221 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.No.27221 of 2023 and
W.M.P.No.26661 of 2023
J.Saravanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited,
Represented by its Chairman cum Managing Director,
Shri.M.Prasanna Kumar,
Block-1, Neyveli – 607 801,
Cuddalore District.
2.Sathish Babu,
Executive Director, (Human Resource),
Corporate Officer,
NLC India Limited,
Block-1, Neyveli – 607 801,
Cuddalore District.
3.C.Thiyagaraju,
Chief General Manager, (Industrial Relations),
Corporate Officer,
NLC India Limited,
Block-1, Neyveli – 607 801,
Cuddalore District.
4.District Collector,
Cuddalore District,
Collectorate,
Manjakuppam,
Cuddalore – 607001. ... Respondents
Page No.1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27221 of 2023
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to consider
the representations sent by the petitioner on 25.05.2023, 18.07.2022,
14.03.2022 and 19.02.2022 and conduct a meeting as promised by the
respondents in the Peace Committee Meeting held on 22.12.2021 to
24.12.2021 and also provide employment opportunity to the petitioner who
has graduated from the Respondent Corporation.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.N.Nithiandam-R1 to R3
Mr.V.P.R.Elamparithi-R4
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to
consider the representations sent by the petitioner on 25.05.2023,
18.07.2022, 14.03.2022 and 19.02.2022 and conduct a meeting as promised
by the respondents in the Peace Committee Meeting held on 22.12.2021 to
24.12.2021 and also provide employment opportunity to the petitioner who
has graduated from the Respondent Corporation.
2.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
when the respondent Corporation invited the Industrial Training Institute
holders for apprentice training in the trade of mechanic, the petitioner had
applied for the same and completed the training and also obtained National
Apprenticeship Certificate during the month of May, 2000. Now, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27221 of 2023
grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Corporation have not
provided any employment opportunity to the petitioner, instead they were
offering job based on contractual basis by outsourcing the employees. In
this regard, the petitioner has given several representations to the
respondents on the ground that preference has to be given to the petitioner,
however, the same have not been considered.
3.It is relevant to note that the petitioner said to have been
completed the Apprentice Training at Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited
and obtained the National Apprenticeship Certificate during the month of
May, 2000. Such being the position, the petitioner has submitted his
application for preference in the year 2022, after lapse of several years. It is
well settled that the apprentice trainees have no right to be appointed in
preference to other applicants. This aspect has been clearly laid down by
the Hon'ble Division of this Court in W.A.No.235 of 2005 in paragraph
No.6 and the same is read as follows:
“6.After going through the order of the learned
Single Judge as well as the various decisions referred to
therein, we are entirely in agreement with the conclusions of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27221 of 2023
the learned Single Judge in every respect. In the first place,
the impugned settlement was dated 18.05.1995, while the Writ
Petition came to be filed only in December, 2003, nearly after
8 long years. Such a long time gap itself would frustrate the
claim of the appellant. In the submissions made on behalf of
the Management of N.L.C. Ltd., it is pointed out that after
signing the settlement in the year 1995, till 2003, about 2900
workers of INDCOSERVE have already been regularized by
absorption and that another 2000 workers are awaiting
regularization based on the said settlement. Therefore, it
would be wholly inequitable if the challenge made by the
appellant to the said settlement is to be entertained at this
belated point of time. There is absolutely no explanation
offered on behalf of the appellant as to why the challenge was
not made immediately after the signing of the said settlement.
Therefore, on the ground of delay and laches itself, the claim
of the appellants cannot be probed into. Secondly, as rightly
pointed out by the learned counsel for the Management or
N.L.C., Ltd., reliance placed upon by the appellant on the
Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1996
WR.L.R. 215 (cited supra) has been set aside by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in its order dated 3.10.1996 in C.A.Nos.5285
to 5328 of 1996. In fact, in the said order, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has also considered the earlier decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “U.P State Road Transport
Corporation and another Vs. U.P.Parivahan Nigam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27221 of 2023
Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others” reported in 1995 AIR
SC 1115 and it held as under:
“We are of the view that this Court has
clearly laid down that the Apprentice Trainees have
no right to be appointed in preference to other
applicants.....”
In fact, the Division Bench judgment relied upon by
the applicant only followed the above referred to earlier
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in “1995 AIR
SC 1115”, yet, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while setting aside
the order of the Division Bench, has ruled out as above.
Therefore, the apprentices who have undertaken training
under the provisions of the Apprentice Act, 1971, did not
acquire any special status in order to contend that they are
entitled to seek for preference in the job opportunities in the
various Government Institutions, much less the members of
the appellant in N.L.C Ltd.”
4.In the light of the above decision, this Court is of the view that
the apprentice trainees have no right to be appointed in preference to other
applicants, that too, after lapse of several years. Therefore, mere giving
direction to consider the representations of the petitioner, will not serve any
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27221 of 2023
vv2
purpose. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
15.09.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
vv2
To
1.The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited,
Block-1, Neyveli – 607 801,
Cuddalore District.
2.The District Collector,
Cuddalore District,
Collectorate,
Manjakuppam,
Cuddalore – 607001.
W.P.No.27221 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
