Dharam Pal And Ors vs National Fertilizers Ltd And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 337 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dharam Pal And Ors vs National Fertilizers Ltd And Anr on 9 January, 2024

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001564



                                                                 2024:PHHC:001564

CWP-17600-2018 (O&M) & connected cases                                              -1-


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH


110(3 cases)                                     CWP-17600-2018 (O&M)
                                                 Date of Decision: 09.01.2024

Dharam Pal and others                                                  ...Petitioners


                                       Versus


National Fertilizers Limited and another                            ...Respondents


                                        With

                                                 CWP-21650-2018

Sushil Kumar and others                                                ...Petitioners


                                       Versus


National Fertilizers Limited and another                            ...Respondents


                                         And

                                                 CWP-28394-2018

Pardeep Bhardwaj and others                                            ...Petitioners


                                       Versus


National Fertilizers Limited and another                            ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:-      Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners
               (in CWP No.17600 of 2018 & CWP No.21650 of 2018)
               Mr. Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate for the petitioners
               (in CWP No.28394 of 2018)
               Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the respondents
               (in all the petitions)
               ***


                                      1 of 6
                   ::: Downloaded on - 10-01-2024 04:34:05 :::
                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001564



                                                               2024:PHHC:001564

CWP-17600-2018 (O&M) & connected cases                                            -2-


JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. As the issue involved is common, with the consent of contesting

parties, all the captioned petitions are taken up together. For the sake of

brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP No.17600 of 2018.

2. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of

the Constitution of India are seeking directions to the respondents to consider

case of the petitioners for the appointment on regular posts in terms of

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport

Corporation v. UP Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sang and others,

AIR 1995 SC 1115.

3. The petitioners joined respondent-National Fertilizers Limited as

apprentice in terms of Apprenticeship Act 1961 (for short '1961 Act'). The

petitioners from 1999 to 2001 underwent three years training. It was an

intensive training. The respondent-organization on completion of training did

not appoint the petitioners in any section of the respondent. The respondent-

organization vide advertisement dated 18.05.2018 (Annexure P-3) invited

applications for the post of Junior Engineering Assistant Grade-II for its

different manufacturing units. In the advertisement, minimum eligibility

criteria was prescribed. As per the prescribed criteria, an applicant was

required to have either degree of B.Sc. or regular three years diploma in

Engineering. The petitioners are neither holding degree of B.Sc. nor three

years diploma in Engineering. On account of lack of minimum prescribed

qualification, the petitioners could not apply for the advertised post.

4. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that as per paragraph

12 of the judgment of Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001564

2024:PHHC:001564

CWP-17600-2018 (O&M) & connected cases -3-

Corporation (supra), every employer is duty bound to give preference to

trained apprentice over direct recruits. The petitioners are trained apprentices,

thus, respondent-organization was duty bound to give preference to the

petitioners over other candidates. The respondent-organization intentionally in

the advertisement has prescribed criteria which petitioners cannot comply

with. The intent of the respondent-organization was to deprive the petitioners

an opportunity to participate in the selection process. The petitioners are

ready to work as labour/majdoor with the respondent.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

Section 22 of the 1961 Act specifically provides that it shall not be obligatory

on the part of an employer to provide employment to any apprentice who has

completed the period of training nor shall it be obligatory on the part of

apprentice to accept any employment with the employer. The respondent-

organization has relaxed age criteria for the apprentices, however,

qualification cannot be compromised because it was a conscious decision of

the management to have B.Sc. graduates or three years diploma holders in

Engineering. The petitioners cannot impose education qualification as per

their suitability upon the respondent-organization.

6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and

perused the record with their able assistance.

7. The conceded position emerging from the record is that the

petitioners completed their apprenticeship in 2001 and respondent-

organization advertized post in 2018 i.e. after 17 years from the date of

completion of apprenticeship by the petitioners. The petitioners are neither

B.Sc. qualified nor hold three years diploma in any branch of the Engineering.

                                    3 of 6

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001564



                                                                2024:PHHC:001564

CWP-17600-2018 (O&M) & connected cases                                             -4-

The respondent-organization has granted age relaxation to the apprentices,

however, no relaxation in the qualification has been granted.

8. From the additional affidavit filed by the respondent-

organization, it comes out that respondent on account of change of technology

and closure of its partial manufacturing unit has decided to make appointment

of manual labour as less as possible. The respondent vide its recruitment

policy dated 03.08.1999 has decided to make maximum appointments of

B.Sc./Diploma holders. The respondent-organization has further decided that

job of attendants/helpers or majdoors in future would be carried out by Junior

Engineering Assistant Grade-II. The respondent-organization every year is

imparting training to approximately 200 persons having matriculation plus ITI

qualifications. The respondent-organization, even on 31.01.2020, was having

256 apprentices possessing qualification of matriculation plus ITI. The

respondent-organization cannot grant job to everyone who has been imparted

training by it.

9. Section 22 of the 1961 Act provides that it shall not be obligatory

on the part of the employer to offer employment to any apprentice who has

completed the period of his apprenticeship training nor it shall be obligatory

on the part of the apprentice to accept an employment with employer. Section

22 of the Act reads as:

"22 Offer and acceptance of employment. -

(1) It shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer any employment to any apprentice who has completed the 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.

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001564

2024:PHHC:001564

CWP-17600-2018 (O&M) & connected cases -5-

(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.

10. In the contract executed between the parties, there was no

condition that employer would offer suitable employment to the apprentices.

11. The petitioners completed their apprenticeship in 2001. The

respondent-organization issued impugned advertisement in 2018. The

petitioners never raised their claim of employment during 2001 to 2018

meaning thereby there was acquiescence on their part of action of respondent

of relieving them on completion of apprenticeship. The respondent-

organization has consciously prescribed qualification criteria. It is settled

proposition of law that Courts cannot ask any employer to alter or lay down

qualification criteria. It is the employer who has to decide strength of its

workers and their qualification because it is the employer who has to get its

work done and pay the remuneration. The entire claim of the petitioners is

based upon judgment of Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport

Corporation (supra). The Apex Court has not held that in each and every

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001564

2024:PHHC:001564

CWP-17600-2018 (O&M) & connected cases -6-

case apprentice should be offered job. The Court has not held that employer

can be asked to prescribe eligibility criteria as per suitability of the

apprentices. The mandate of Section 22 of 1961 Act is very clear.

12. In the wake of aforesaid facts and findings, this Court is of the

considered opinion that present petition being bereft of merit deserves to be

dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

13. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

14. The dismissal of present petitions would not inhibit the

respondent-organization from considering the petitioners, if at any time they

are found suitable.

                                                      (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
                                                            JUDGE
09.01.2024
Mohit Kumar

                  Whether speaking/reasoned         Yes/No
                      Whether reportable            Yes/No




                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001564

                                    6 of 6