http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: U.P. STATE OF ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: U.P. PARIVAHAN NIGAM SHISHUKHS BEROZGAR SANGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/01/1995

BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J) MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 1115            1995 SCC  (2)   1  JT 1995 (2)    26        1995 SCALE  (1)127

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: 1.   The  material  resources of this country  are  limited. Indeed  this is so for every country.  The  resource  crunch is,  however,  acute for us ; and so whenever  and  wherever public money is invested, it has to be seen that there is  a proper utilisation of the same in the sense that the  public ultimately gets benefit of the same. 2.   This prelude is to highlight the idea which we  propose to  focus as we proceed to bring home the need to  make  the investment  in apprentice trainees useful to the  society  , which would be so when the training received by them is  put to social use.  We are putting this aspect of the matter  at the  forefront  because one of the  appellants  namely,  the U.P.State  Road  Transport Corporation, (herein  after  ’the Corporation),  has  made a grievance about  some  directions given by the Allahabad-High 28 Court  to  employ  those who had received  training  in  the workshop  of the Corporation.  The direction has been  given mainly  at  the  call of promissory estoppel  which  is  not applicable  according  to the Corporation.  We  would  agree with this stand of the Corporation; but then, another reason advanced  for  the direction is also spending  of  money  on imparting  the training to the apprentice, which  aspect  is relevant  as  already  alluded,  and  which  we  propose  to buttress further. 3.   Before  doing so, let the objects behind the  enactment of  Apprentices  Act, 1961 (for short, ’the Act ’)  and  its main  provisions  along  with what has been  stated  in  the Apprenticeship Rules 1991 (’the Rules’) be noted.  The  need for  the Act was felt as mentioned in the Statement  of  the Objects  and  Reasons,  to  ensure  that  the  training   of apprentices  streamlined  in  the back  drop  of  increasing demand  for  skilled craftsman in the wake  of  large  scale industrial development of the country.  The Act,  therefore,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

proposed  to  provide  for the  regulation  and  control  of training  of apprentices.  The amendment of the Act in  1973 by which training of graduate engineers and diploma  holders was  introduced  was  for "improving  their  employment  po- tential"  and to solve the immediate  unemployment  problem. The amendment in 1986 aimed to provide "on the job training" to  the  products  of vocational streams  so  that  adequate competence  and skill required for various  occupations  are acquired leading to "suitable employment or  self-employment opportunities" in organised industries etc. 4.   With the aforesaid objects in forefront,     which  the Act seeks to achieve through  its  various  amendments,  let the  relevant  important  provisions be  noted.   Section  4 requires  entering into a contract before an  apprentice  is admitted to undergo training.  By the force of Rule 6(2)  of the Rules, the Central Government has even specified a model contract.    Section  7  deals  with  the   termination   of apprenticeship contract and Rule 8 has laid down the quantum of  compensation to be paid in case of termination.  Rule  5 even visualises reservation for Scheduled Castes and  Sched- uled Tribes trainees.  A references to Rule 7 shows that the period  of training extends upto four years in  some  cases; and as per Rule 11 the trade apprentices are required to  be paid stipend varying from Rs.290 to Rs. 700 per month.  Rule 3 deals with the standard of education necessary for  making a  person eligible for being engaged as a  trade  apprentice and  a glance of Schedules 1 and 1-A shows that the  minimum educational  qualification required is matriculation or  its equivalent   or   10th  Class  under  10+2   system,   which qualification in case of technician is even graduation. 5.   From  the  aforesaid,  it is clear  that  the  training imparted  is  rather exhaustive and  elaborate.   Sufficient amount  of  money is also spent on the trainees  by  way  of payment  of  stipend  to them.  What is more,  there  is  an obligation  on the employers to provide an  apprentice  with training  in his trade in accordance with the provisions  of the  Act-Schedule V to the Rules containing details  of  the obligations;  and  the employer Is also required  to  ensure that a person possessing prescribed qualification is  placed in charge of training of the apprentices.  The Act seeks  to enforce  these obligations on the pain of even  prosecution, about which mention has been made in Section 30 of the Act. 29 6.So the legislature did desire and make adequate provisions to  see that the competent persons receive due  training  to cater the need of increasing demand for skilled craftsman on one  hand,  and to improve the employment potential  of  the trainees on the other.  Good amount of money, which would be public money in case of public bodies like the  Corporation, is also spent on training the apprentices.  Further,  during the  period  of training, the apprentices are  put  under  a discipline  akin to that of regular employee in as  much  as Section  17  states  that  in all  matters  of  conduct  and discipline the apprentice shall be governed by the rules and regulations  applicable  to employees of  the  corresponding category  in  the establishment in which the  apprentice  is undergoing  training.   Section 16 requires payment  to  the apprentice in case of injury due to accident arising out  of and  in  the  course of training,  in  accordance  with  the provision of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1924, modified by the Act.  The Rules have dealt with the hours of work  (Rule 12) and grant of leave (Rule 13) also. 7.The  aforesaid provisions arc sufficiently  indicative  of the  fact of the fact that the training imparted is  desired to be result-oriented; and the trainees are treated as  akin

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

to employees.  Even so Section 22 of the Act states, and  it is  this provision which has been pressed in to  service  by the  appellants that it shall not be obligatory on the  part of  the employer to offer any employment to  apprentice  who has  completed the period of his apprenticeship training  in this  establishment  unless  there be  a  condition  in  the contract  to the contrary.  The model contract form  finding place  in  Schedule  VI of the Rules  echoes  the  voice  of section  22(1) In its para 2.The Corporation has  placed  on record a model contract form entered into between it and the trainees   which  also  states  about  the  aforesaid   non- obligation. 8.On  the  strength  of  these  provisions,  the  contention advanced  is that the High Court could not have directed  to give employment to the trainees.  Reference to the  impugned judgment, however, shows that while giving the direction the Court was conscious of what has been provided in Section  22 of  the Act; even so, the direction was given on  the  basis principally  of doctrine of promissory estoppel  as  already noted.   As to this view taken by the High Court,  we  state that,  according to us, the direction in question could  not have been given because of this principle, despite what  was given out by the Joint General Manager of the Corporation in his Circular letter dated 1977 referred in the judgment. 9.We  have said so as reference to that Circular shows  that all it has done is to lay down the procedure for the  selec- tion   of  the  apprentices,  which  did  not  require   the apprentices to undergo any written examination for selection and their routing through employment exchange was done  away with.  Something was said about the age also.  No promise of employment  can  be read in this Circular which is  of  21st December,1977.  We would say the same about the Memo of  the Directorate of Training and Employment of the State of  U.P. dated 21st September, 1977 as falls short of any promise  of employment, because what it says is that full efforts should be made to provide the trainees with service- In this  Memo, what had been stated In para 2 of the Government of  India’s letter dated 31.8.1978 had been quoted in SOD which it was mentioned that the scheme of training had  been introduced  to  promote chances of  employment  of  educated employed  persons; and that if employers would  not  provide employment to the qualified apprentices this would amount to destruction of developed human resources.  It is because  of this that the Government of India expressed the desire  that other things being equal trained apprentices should be given preference in case of employment". 10.  For a promise to be enforceable, the same has,  however to be clear and unequivocal.  We do not read any such  prom- ise in the aforesaid three documents and we, therefore, hold that  at the call of promissory estoppel, the  direction  in question  could not have been given by the High Court.   But then,  we are left in no doubt that the Government of  India did  desire that preference should be given to  the  trained apprentices  and  it  is  because of  this  that  the  State Government  stated in its letter No.735/38-6-16  (T)-79  dt. 12.11.79  that where such apprentices arc available,  direct recruitment  should not to be made.  Indeed, the  Government of India in its letter dated 23.3.1983 even desired reserva- tion of 50 per cent vacancies for apprentice trainees. 11.  Theaforcsaid  being the position it would not  be  just and  proper to go merely by what has been stated in  Section 22(1) of the Act, or for that matter, in the model  contract form.   What  is indeed required is to see that  the  nation gets  the  benefit of time, money and energy  spent  on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

trainces,  which  would  be so when they  are  cm’ployed  in preference to non-trained direct recruits.  This would  also meet the legitimate expectations of the trainees. 12.  In the background of what has been noted     above,  we state that the following would     be  kept  in  mind  while dealing  with the claim of trainees to get employment  after successful of their training:- (1)Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should  be given preference over direct recruits. (2)For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange.  The decision of  this Court  in  Union of India. v. Hargopal, AIR  1987  SC  1227, would permit this. (3)If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same would  be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in  this regard,  if  any,  in the concerned service  rule.   If  the service  rule  be silent on this aspect, relaxation  to  the extent of the period for which the apprentice had  undergone training would be given. (4)  The conccrned training institute would  maintain a list of the persons trained year   wise.   The  persons   trained earlier  would be treated as senior to the  persons  trained later.  In between the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to those who are senior. 13.  In  so far as the cases at hand are concerned, we  find that  the Corporation filed an additional affidavit in  C.A. Nos.  4347-4854  of  1990 as desired by the  Court  on  20th October,  1992  giving position regarding vacancies  in  the posts of conductors and clerks.  If such posts be still  va- cant,  we direct the Corporation to act in  accordance  with what has been stated above regarding the entitlement of  the trainees.  We make it clear that while con- 31 sidering the cases of the trainees for giving employment  in suitable  posts,  what  has been laid down  in  the  Service Regulations  of  the Corporation shall be  followed,  except that  the  trainees would not be required to appear  in  any written examination, if any provided by the regulations.  It is  apparent  that  before  considering  the  cases  of  the trainees, the requirement of their names being sponsored  by the  employment exchange would not be insisted upon.  In  so far  as the age requirement is concerned, the same shall  be relaxed as indicated above. 14.  The  appeals/Special  leave petitions are  disposed  of which the aforesaid directions and observations by modifying the  impugned  judgment  accordingly.   In  the  facts   and circumstances  of  the case, we leave the  parties  to  tear their own costs. I.A. Nos. 11 to 21, 30 of 1991, 39 and 40 of 1992 15.  In view of the above judgment, no order need be  passed on these applications which stand disposed of 32