A U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS.  

B  

v.  U.P. PARIVAHAN NIGAM SHISHUKHS BEROZGAR SANGH  

AND ORS.  

JANUARY 12, 1995  

[KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]  

Apprentices Act, 1961-Section 22 ( 1rApprenticeship Rules,  1991-Training of Apprentices-{;/aim of trainees to get employment after  

C completion of their training-Appropriate directions given regarding entitle- ments of trainees.  

The High Court of Allahabad gave some directions to the U.P. State  Road Transport Corporation to employ those apprentices who had  received training in the workshop of the Corporation. The direction had  

D been given on the basis of doctrine of promissory estoppel relying upon a  circular letter dated 1977 given out by the Joint General Manager of the  Corporation. This appeal had been tiled against this judgment of the High  Court.  

E  

F  

G  

According to the appellants Corporation, the doctrine of promissory  estoppel was not applicable in this case. Relying on Section 22 of the  Apprentices Act, it was contended that it was not obligatory on the part of  the employer to offer any employment to any apprentice wlto had com- pleted the period of his apprenticeship training in his establishment unless  there be a condition in the contract to the contrary. The Corporation  placed on record a model contract form entered into between it and the  trainees which also stated about the aforesaid non- obligation. Therefore,  it was urged that the High Court could not have directed the employer to  give employment to the trainees.  

Disposing of the matter, this Court  

HELD: 1.1 For a promise to be enforceable, the same has to be clear  and unequivocal. In the instance case, no promise of employment could be  read in the circular letter dated 21st December, 1977, given out by the Joint  General Manager of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. Memo  

·Ji of the Directorate of Training and Employment of the State of U.P. dated  204

U.P. STATE RD. TPT. v. U.P. PRIV AHAN NIGAM 205  

21st September, 1977 also fell short of any promise of employment, because A  of what it stated was that full efforts should be made to provide the  trainees with service. No promise of employment could be read iu these  documents, and, therefore, at the call of promissory estoppel, the direction  in question could not have been given by the High Court. However, the  Government of India did desire that preference should be given to the B  trained apprentices and it was because of this that the State Government  Stated in its letter No. 735/3838-6-16 (T) • 79 dt. 12-11-79 that where such  apprentices were available, direct recruitment should not be made. The  Government of India in its letter dated 23.3.1983 even desired reservation  of 50 percent vacancies for apprentices trainees. [209-E-F]  

c  1.2 It would not be just and proper to go merely by what has been  

stated in Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act, 1961, or in the model  contract form. What is required is to see that the nation gets the benefit  of time, money and energy spent on the trainees, which would be so when  they are employed in preference to non-trained direct recruits. This would  also meet the legitimate expectations of the trainees. [209·G-H] D  

1.3 The following should, therefore, be kept in mind while dealing  with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful completion  of their training :-

(1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given  preference over direct recruits.  

(2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name  sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this court in  

E  

Union of India v. Hargopal, AIR (1987) SC 1227, would permit this. F  

(3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same would  be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any, in the  concerned service rule. If the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxa·  tion to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone G  training would be given.  

( 4) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the  persons trained year-wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as  senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentice,  preference shall be given to those who are senior. [210-A-D] '-I

206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.  

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-54  of 1990 etc. etc.  

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.10.89 of the Allahabad High  Court in W.P. Nos. 863, 942, 1210, 1283, 1413, 1957, 2545 and 2749 of 1989.  

B B.C. Sen, Ramachandran, Pardeep Mishra, Ms. Sadhana  Ramachandran, Shakil Ahmad Syed, N.P. Midha for Bharat Sangal, K.K.  Gupta, Mohan Pandey, Prashant Kumar, Vishwajit Singh, Devendra Singh, ·  Subodh Markandeya for Ms. C. Markandeya, Shree Pal Singh, Arun Kr.  Sharma for Ms. Pratibha Jain, R.D. Upadhyay and M.S. Parihar for the  

C appearing parties.  

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by  

HANSARIA, J. The material resources of this country are limited.  Indeed this is so for every country. The resource crunch is, however, acute  

D 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 apprentices  

E 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, (hereinafter 'the Corporation') has made a  grievance about some directions given by the Allahabad High Court to  

F employ those who had received training in the workshop of the Corpora- tion. 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 advance. for the  direction is also spending of money of imparting the training to the appren-

G tice, which aspect is relevant as already alluded, and which we proposed  to buttress further.  

3. Before doing so, left the objects behind the enactment of Appren- tices Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') and its main provisions along with what  has been stated in the Apprenticeship Rules, 1991 ('the Rule') be noted.  

H The need for the Act was felt, as mentioned in the Statement of the Objects

U.P. STATE RD. TPT. v. U.P. PRIV ARAN NIGAM [HANSARIA, J.) 207  

and Reasons, to ensure that the training of apprentices is streamlined in A  the back drop of increasing demand for skilled craftsman in the wake of  large scale industrial development onhe country. The Act, therefore,  proposed to provide for the regulation and control of training of appren- tices. The amendment of the Act in 1973 by which training of graduate  engineers and diploma holders was introduced was for "improving their  employment potential" 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 employ- ment or self-employment opportunities" in organised industries etc.  

B  

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 enterining into a contract before  an apprentice is permitted to undergo training. By the force of Rule 6(2)  

c  

of the Rules, the Central Government has even specified a model contract. D  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  Scheduled Tribes trainees. A reference to Rule 7 shows that the period of  training extends upto for years in some cases; and as per Rule 11 the trade  apprentices are required to be paid stipend varying from Rs. 290 to Rs. E  700 per months. Rule 3 deal with the standard of education necessary for  making a person eligible for being engaged as a trade apprentice and a  glance of Schedules I and I-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. F  

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 G  Rules containing details of the obligations; and the employer is also re-.  quired 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. H

208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.  

A 6. So the legislature did desire and make adequate provisions to see  that the competent persons receive due training to cater to 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,  

B 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 inasmuch as Section 17 states that in all matters of conduct and  discipline, the apprentice shall be governed by the rule and regulations  applicable to employees of the corresponding category in the establishment  in which the apprentice is undergoing training. Section 16 requires pay-

C ment 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, as modified by the Act. The Rules have dealt  with the hours of work (Rule 12) and grant of leave (Rule 13) also.  

D 7. The aforesaid provisions are sufficiently indicative of the fact that  the training imparted is desired to be result-oriented; and the trainees are  treated as akin 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 employ-

E men! to any apprentice who has completed the period of his apprenticeship  training in his 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  

F  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 gave 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  

G 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 glilen because of this principle, despite  what was given out by the Joint General Manager of the Corporation in  

H his Circular letter dated 1977 referred in the judgment.

U.P.STATERD. TPT. V. U.P.PRIVAHANNIGAM [HANSARJAJ.) 209  

9. We have said so as reference to that circular shows that all it has A  done is to lay down the procedure for the selection 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. Some thing was said about the age also. No promise of employ-

ment can be read in this Circular which is of 21st December, 1977. We B  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 it 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 which it was mentioned that the scheme of C  training had been introduced to promote chances of employment of edu- cated employed persons; and that if employers would not provide employ- ment to the qualified apprentices the same would amount to destruction  of developed human resources. It is because of this that the Government  of India expressed the deire that "other things being equal trained appren- D  tices should be given preference in case of empioyment".  

10. For a promise to be enforceable, the same has, however, to be  clear and une~uivocal. We do not read .any such promise in the aforesaid  three documents and we, therefore, hold that at the call of promissory E  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 are available, direct  recruitment should not to be made. Indeed, the Government of India in its  letter dated 23.3.1983 even desired reservation of 50 per cent vacancies for  apprentice trainees.  

11. The aforesaid being the position, it would not be just and proper  

F  

to go merely by what has been stated in Section 22(1) of the Act, or for G  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  trainees, which would be so when they are employed in preference to  non-trained direct recruits. This would also meet the legitimate expecta- tions of the trainees. H

210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1995]1 S.C.R.  

A 12. In the background of what has been noted above, we state that  

B  

the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees  to get employment after successful completion of their training: -

(1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given  preference over direct recruits.  

(2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name  sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in  Union of India v. Hargopal, AIR (1987) SC 1227, would permit this.  

C (3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same wt>uld  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.  

D (4) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the  persons trained year wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as  senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices,  preference shall be given to those who are senior.  

E 13. In so far as the case at hand are concerned, we find that the  Corporation filed an additional affidavit in C.A. Nos. 4347-4354of1990 (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 vacant,  we direct the Corporation to act in accordance with what has been stated  

F above regarding the entitlement of the trainees. We make it clear that while  considering the cases of the trainees for giving employment in suitable  posts, what has been laid down in the Service Regulations of the Corpora- tion 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 require-

G ment 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 with the  H aforesaid directions and observations by modifying the impugned judg~

l  

I  

U.P. STATE RD. TPT. v. U.P. PRN ARAN NIGAM [HANSARIA, J.] 211  

ments accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the A  parties to bear their own costs.  

IA. Nos. 11 to 21, 30 of 1991. 39 and 40 of 1992.  

In view of the above judgment, no order need be passed on these  applications which stand disposed of.  

A.G. Petitions disposed of.