Former apprentices sought appointment as General Mazdoor Category-I, further age relaxation and proficiency certificates. The Court dismissed all petitions as barred by res judicata and held that, apart from two petitions, they also suffered from delay and laches.
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
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order reserved on: 26.10.2017
Order passed on: 17.11.2017
WPS No.1829 of 2012
2
3
---- Petitioners
4
---- Respondents
WPS No. 2541 Of 2012
5
6
---- Respondents
WPS No. 421 Of 2015
7
---- Petitioners
WPS No. 432 Of 2015
8
Vs
---- Respondents
WPS No. 524 Of 2015
9
10
WPS No. 627 Of 2015
---- Petitioners
Vs
11
---- Respondents
WPS No. 692 Of 2015
---- Petitioners
12
Vs
WPS No. 1317 Of 2014
---- Petitioners
Vs
13
---- Respondents
WPS No. 1011 Of 2015
---- Petitioners
14
---- Respondents
WPS No. 1738 Of 2015
15
District Anuppur. Civil & Revenue District Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh)
---- Petitioners
WPS No. 2222 Of 2015
16
(Chhattisgarh), Civil & Revenue District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh)
17
---- Petitioners
Vs
---- Respondents
WPS No. 2875 Of 2015
---- Petitioners
18
Vs
---- Respondents
WPS No. 3413 Of 2015
19
---- Petitioners
Vs
20
---- Respondents
WPS No. 3073 Of 2015
---- Petitioners
---- Respondents
21
WPS No. 3134 Of 2015
22
23
---- Respondents
And
WPS No. 3207 Of 2015
24
---- Petitioners
Vs
---- Respondents
| ---------------------------------- For Petitioners |
--------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr.Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate with Mr.Rajesh Chand, Advocate in WPS Nos. 1829/2012 & 2541/2012 |
|---|---|
| For Petitioners |
: Mr.Alok Kumar Pandey, Mr.Rahul Mishra and Mr.Alok Dewangan, Advocate in other writ petitions |
| For Res.No.1 to 4/ SECL/Coal India Limited |
: Mr.Vinod Deshmukh and Ms S. Harshita, Advocate |
| For Union of India ---------------------------------- |
: Mr.B. Gopa Kumar, Asst. Solicitor General --------------------------------------------------------------- |
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
C.A.V. Order
25
& Ors. ) and the Supreme Court vide order dated 29.3.2007 set aside the order dated 8.11.2005 passed in WP No.1357/2002
26
and order dated 28.4.2006 passed in MCC No.254/2005 and pleased to hold that as and when vacancy for regular appointment is advertised and everything being equal, preference may be given to the candidates/petitioners who have been trained by the respondent-SECL.
27
imposition of ban on such appointments, due to which, the petitioners became over age.
Parivahan Nigam Shikshuk Berojgar Sangh1 in its letter and spirit by giving age relaxation in the recruitment. They have further pleaded that in the advertisement itself, the respondents have categorically mentioned that the
1 (1995) 2 SCC 1
28
apprentice/candidates would be entitled for age relaxation to the extent of the period for which the petitioners/candidates have undergone apprentice training. Despite the relaxation granted to the candidates, they did not qualify for selection on the post of General Mazdoor Category-I as they were found over age and not qualified for selection. However, some of the apprentice who were granted age relaxation to the extent of the period for which they have undergone apprentice training were found to be eligible. It has been further pleaded that the management of the respondent-SECL vide letter dated 16.8.2010 has sent names of the petitioners to the National Council of Training, Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training, Udyog Nagar, Kanpur and the said authority by order dated 27.8.2010 declined to award National Proficiency Certificate under the aegis of National Council for Vocational Training (hereinafter called as 'NCVT'). Thereafter, batch of contempt petitions filed by the petitioners for non-compliance of the order dated 29.4.2010 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.168 of 2009 have been disposed of with some observation directing certain positive steps to be taken by respondent-SECL as per order, which has been considered and memo dated 15/16.2.2015 has been issued by the respondentSECL. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed also on the ground of delay and laches and principle of resjudicata. It is the case of the writ petitioners that order of Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 168 of 2009 and order of the
29
Contempt Court dated 23.1.2015 have been duly complied with by the respondent-CIL/SECL. The petitioners have not challenged the order dated 27.8.2010 which has become final and the respondent-CIL/SECL has no obligation to give employment in their establishment, which is apparent from the order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the Supreme Court in Jivendra Prasad Tiwari (supra) and as such, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
30
Court in Writ Appeal No.139/2009. Therefore, appropriate direction be issued for granting age relaxation to the petitioners and for consideration of their candidature on the post of General Mazdoor Category-I in accordance with law.
31
therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relaxation as claimed in these writ petitions.
“In view of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for absorption and regularization on the post of General Mazdoor Catetory-I immediately after the ban imposed vide order dated 28th July, 2000 (Annexure R-1) issued by the Ministry of Coal, is lifted. The respondents are further directed to take steps to get the relaxation from ban for appointment of the petitioners on the above stated posts. The petitioners may be entitled to proficiency certificates, if permissible.
“we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable. When apprentice undergoes a training, there is no obligation for the Management to give him employment/absorption in the establishment. Therefore, the direction given by the learned Single
32
Judge is totally wrong and liable to be set aside. However, in case the vacancies are advertised for regular appointment and everything being equal, then a preference may be given to the candidates who have been trained by this establishment because they have undergone a training in this establishment and have legitimate expectation. We set aside the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 8.11.2005 in the writ petition and order dated 28.4.2006 passed in review application and direct that as and when vacancy for regular appointment is advertised and everything being equal, preference may be given to the candidates who have been trained by this establishment.
If the incumbents have already successfully completed the training, there is no reason to withhold their proficiency certificate.”
33
Writ Appeal was disposed of by Division Bench of this Court on 29.4.2010 with the following direction:-
“10. With regard to relief sought for issuance of direction to take steps for granting proficiency certificates as provided in section 21 of the Apprentices Act, 1961, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already observed that when the incumbents have completed their training, there is no reason to withhold the proficiency certificates. It appears that in the instant case, the incumbents have not been referred to the National Council inspite of representations made by the appellants to that effect. Therefore, we direct that the appellants' names shall be referred to the National Council along-with their particulars for giving a chance to appear in the test so that they may get proficiency certificates after getting successful in the test. The National Council shall consider the same as early as possible preferably within period of 3 months from the date of production of a copy of this order. A copy of this order shall be produced by the writ appellants before the concerned respondents along-with all particulars.
of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.139/2009, the
34
respondent-CIL/SECL sent the names of the petitioners to the National Council of Vocational Training, Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training, Udyog Nagar, Kanpur. The said authority by order dated 27.8.2010 declined to award National Proficiency Certificate under the aegis of NCVT. The order of NCVT has attained finality as it has not been questioned by any of the petitioners in these batch of writ petitions. In the meanwhile, contempt petitions were also filed for noncompliance of the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.168/2009, in which this Court (Contempt Court) on 23.1.2015 held as under:-
“7. I will first take up non-compliance of para 10 of order dated 29/04/2010. From a bare perusal of said order, it would appear that this court directed the respondent-SECL to refer the name of writ appellants to the NCVT along with their particulars so that they may get a chance to appear in the test and to get proficiency certificate. The document dated 27/08/2010 (Annexure P/3) filed by the petitioners would clearly show that in compliance of order of this court, the respondents sent name of petitioners herein vide memo dated 29.07.2010 to NCVT as directed and the Govt. of India by its memo dated 27.08.2010 has declined to accept the request of respondent-SECL to grant proficiency certificate to the petitioners on the ground that training given by the SECL cannot be termed as apprenticeship training under the Provisions of Apprentices Act, 1961, and therefore, they cannot be awarded certificate under the aegis of NCVT, and upon passing of this order, para 10 of order complained of dated 29.04.2010 stands complied with and if the petitioners are aggrieved with the said order dated 27.08.2010 (Annexure P/3), they are at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
35
herein) shall be considered for appointment to the post of General Mazdoor Category-I in accordance with law. It is common stand of the respondents that they are ready and willing to consider the cases of petitioners for age relaxation sympathetically in accordance with law as and when, the post of General Mazdoor Category-I is advertised for recruitment and claimed by petitioners, their cases shall be considered for appointment to the said post of General Mazdoor Category-I as per law with age relaxation.
2 (2007) 9 SCC 461
36
relaxation can never be given by a Court order. It was held as under:-
“9. The learned Single Judge has also issued a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to consider the case of Writ Petitioner 5 as to whether he was entitled for exemption from age qualification. As already mentioned the Rules do not make any provision for granting exemption except to the limited extent as provided in the second para of Rule 11. The principles, on which a writ of mandamus can be issued, are well settled and we will refer to only one decision rendered in Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop.Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh where this Court observed as under: (SCC p.152, para15)
[A] writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance.
others 3 has held that where the judgment was in personam,
3 (2015) 1 SCC 347
37
those who intent to get benefit of the said judgment must satisfy the Court that their petition does not suffer from either laches, delay or acquiescence.
“6. The question of delay and laches has been examined by this Court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise of the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, can his writ petition be heard after a couple of years on the ground that same relief should be granted to him as was granted to person similarly situated who was vigilant about his rights and challenged his retirement which was said to be made on attaining the age of 58 years. A chart has been supplied to us in which it has been pointed out that about 9 writ petitions were filed by the employees of the
5 (2006) 11 SCC 464
4 (2007) 2 SCC 725
38
Nigam before their retirement wherein their retirement was somewhere between 30-6-2005 and 31-7-2005. Two writ petitions were filed wherein no relief of interim order was passed. They were granted interim order. Thereafter a spate of writ petitions followed in which employees who retired in the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, woke up to file writ petitions in 2005 and 2006 much after their retirement. Whether such persons should be granted the same relief or not ?
20. The Supreme Court in the matter of New Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Pan Singh 6 has held as under:-
“16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. Respondents herein filed a Writ Petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the Writ Petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the Court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. (See Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy And Others [(2004) 1 SCC 347], Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh And Anr. [2006 (12) SCALE 347] and Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd.
6 2007 (2) SCC (L&S) 398
39
through its Chairman & Managing Director and Another v. K. Thangappan and Another [(2006) 4 SCC 322]
40
round of litigation directions issued by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.139/2009 have already been considered and complied with and subsequent orders passed by the respondent-SECL and National Council of Vocational Training have not been challenged by the petitioners. Apart from this, except WPS (S) Nos. 1829/2012 and 2541/2012 all other writ petitions suffer from delay and laches of more than 19-20 years in their filing as the petitioners have pleaded that they have completed their apprenticeship in the year 1996 to 1998 and in these writ petitions, they are seeking age relaxation after 19-20 years on the basis of order passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.139/2009 and contempt petitions, which cannot be granted.
(Sanjay K.Agrawal)
B/-
3 issues framed by the court
Were the apprentices' renewed claims for appointment and age relaxation barred by res judicata?
Could further age relaxation for appointment as General Mazdoor Category-I be granted?
Were the petitions other than the two earlier petitions liable to dismissal for delay and laches?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chairman, Central Coalfelds Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jivendra Prasad Tiwarii & Ors.Applied¶433
Civil Appeal No.1714/2007
Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Vs. K. Jotheeswara PillaiRelied on¶406
(2007) 9 SCC 461 · Who else cites this
State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and othersRelied on¶414
(2015) 1 SCC 347 · Who else cites this
A.P. Steel ReRolling Mill Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and othersRelied on¶419
(2007) 2 SCC 725 · Who else cites this
U.P. Jal Nigam and another Vs. Jaswant Singh and anotherRelied on¶420
(2006) 11 SCC 464 · Who else cites this
New Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Pan SinghRelied on¶427
2007 (2) SCC (L&S) 398 · Who else cites this
Raj Kumar Patel
Coal India Limited
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
Director (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
Dy. Chief Personnel Manager (Labour) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
Regional Officer Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Regional Apprentices Training Institute
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
