Petitioners challenging non-appointment after completing apprenticeship training filed a writ petition. The Court relied on the Apprenticeship Act, 1961, finding no obligation for employers to offer employment, and dismissed the petition by exercising no writ jurisdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
wp.1420-2014
Dond
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1420 OF 2014
Mr. Amol Ashok Vengurlekar & Ors. Vs.
..Petitioners.
The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Anr. ..Respondents.
Ms. Manda D. Loke for Petitioners. Ms. Pallavi Thakar i/b U.H. Deshpande for Respondent No.1.
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL &
A.S. GADKARI, JJ.
DATE : 20th February 2015.
P.C.
1 The Petitioners claim that they participated in selection process as per advertisement issued in the year 2009 for being appointed as Apprentice with the Respondent-Corporation. It is claimed that they completed their Apprenticeship training with the Respondent-Authority and after completing the same, they were expecting appointment in the services of the Respondent-Corporation. As the Petitioners failed to secure employment in the Corporation, they decided to file present Writ Petition before this Court.
2
wp.1420-2014
2 The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that under the Circular dated 29th May 2009 issued by the RespondentCorporation, a policy was adopted to absorb such apprentice in the regular employment of the Corporation. Three of such apprentice were appointed on contract basis.
3 The learned Counsel appearing for the RespondentCorporation places reliance on the affidavit-in-reply. He submits that the Petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. In view of the provisions of Apprenticeship Act, 1961, the Petitioners are not entitled to be appointed in regular service.
4 Perused the record and considered the submissions. The provisions of Section 22(1) of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 reads as under:
“22(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 employe r.”
3
wp.1420-2014
5 A Waiting List was prepared on 26th July 2011 in pursuance of advertisement issued on 6th November 2009. As per Circular, the said Waiting List dated 26th July 2011 was operating till 26th July 2012, as the validity of the said list was for one year. The Petitioners have challenged the same.
6 In this view of the matter, no interference is warranted by exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed.
(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular appointment after completing apprenticeship training.
Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 226 given the statutory provisions of the Apprenticeship Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Amol Ashok Vengurlekar & Ors.
The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai
Anr.
NARESH H. PATIL
A.S. GADKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
