Board of Trustees for Port of Calcutta & Ors. versus Avijit Kumar Ray & Ors.

Labour Laws - Recruitment - Trained apprentices and wards of employees dying in harness - Recruitment of, in the c ratio of 1:1 by Port Trust- However, practice discontinued - Challenge to, by 321 trained apprentices - Directions by High Court to give employment to ex-trade apprentices along with died-in-harness category and restore the balance in quota - Reliance placed on Government Guidelines, circulars and b communications issued - Upheld by Division Bench - Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable - Communication does not constitutes an unequivocal, unqualified and enforceable promise nor lays down mode of recruitment on permanent basis or creates any rights in favour of trained E apprentices - Ex-trade apprentices were appointed at one time in equal numbers to those appointed under compassionate appointments scheme but the practice was not based on any statutory provision or agreement - There is no comprehensible connection between the two groups nor any F rational basis for parity between the two groups - Thus, orders of High. Court set aside.

¶19

In 1970s, the Calcutta Port Trust used to recruit trained apprentices and wards of employees dying in harness in the Mechanical Engineering Department in the ratio of 1 :1. They discontinued the said old practice and appointed only the wards of employees dying in harness on compassionate grounds. Respondent viz. 321 trained apprentices filed writ petition seeking their appointment 651

¶20

c3

¶21

H

¶22

.. ' (

¶23

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶24

[2008] 16 S.C.R.

¶25

652

¶26

-A equal ·in number to those appointed on compassionate basis during past many years. On direction by the High Court, the Chairman of the _Port Trust heard the trained apprentices and rejected their claim. Trained apprentices raised demands. The Chairman found that the post of s Fireman in the Marine Department were never filled up by transfer of unskilled labours from the mechanical department; that the Trust was passing through great financial stringency and was burdened with surplus workforce; that there was already a list of about 1200 c persons, dependents of the employees who died in harness; and that a list of trained apprentice·s was already maintained by the Trust for giving preference to them in the matter of direct recruitment to the posts matching their skills and qualifications, thus, there was 0^{nooccasiontomaintainanyotherlistof trained} apprentices for filling up only the vacancies in the Marine department and if any occasion arose to fill up posts by direct recruitment, the passed out trade ·apprentices would also be considered. Trained apprentices challenged the order of the Chairman. High Court allowed E the writ petition. It relied on the Government guidelines, circulars and the communications issued by the Port Trust and directed the Port Trust to consirfcr the cases of the respondent for giving them employm~nt as trained apprentice along with candidates from die,d in harness F category, in the ratio 1 :1 and restore the balance in quota meant for two categories. Port Trust filed appeal which was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.

¶27

x

¶28

Allowing the appeal, the Court

¶29

G

¶30

HELD: 1.1. It cannot be accepted that the letter of July 30, 1986 by the Secretary of the Trust to the Joint General Secrete1ry, Calcutta Port Shramik Union with regard to lifting the ban on recruitment of ex-trade apprentices and absorption of trade apprentices on its own or read along

¶31

H

¶32

BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA & 653 ORS. v. AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS.

¶33

with the earlier communication dated January 4, 1985 A . from the Labour Advisor & Industrial Relations Officer of the Port Trust to the Joint General Secretary of the Calcutta Port Shramik Union with regard to recruitment of the ex-trade apprentices, constitutes an unqualified, enforceable promise or lays down a mode of recruitment B on a permanent basis or creates any rights in favour of the trained apprentices. It is difficult to read in the communication of January.4, 1985 any clear, unequivocal and unqualified promise that may be enforceable after a quarter of century under vastly different conditions. The, c recruitments from the two categories cannot be linkedup and made contingent on each other. [Paras 21, 22 and1 23] [666-B-C; 667-D]

¶34

A .

¶35

1.3. The letter does not answer as to how could the. High Court give direction for appointment of over three. D hundred trained apprentices regardless of the vacancy position and the other relevant considerations. The submrssion that the vital difference between the two was . that the order of the Chairman, Port Trust sought to do away with the parity between the two groups in the matter E of recruitment; and that the respondents' main claim was to adhere to and restore the parity between the ex-trade · apprentices and those covered by the scheme of compassionate appointments in the matter of recruitment cannot be accepted. The ex-trade apprentices were at ' F one time appointed in equal numbers to those appointed under the compassionate appointments scheme but. the practice was not on the basis of any statutory provision or any agreement between the Trust and the workmen. There is no rational basis for such parity between the two . , G groups. It might have served the interests of a certain group in the past and it may appear to the present respondents as a handy bargaining point but in the long term it will be fair neither to ex-trade apprentices nor to those coming under the scheme of compassionate . H

¶36

-I

¶37

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008) 16 S.C.R.

654

x

;. Y'

A appointments. There is rto comprehensible connect'ion between the two groups nor is there any ration@! basis for parity between the two in the matter of recruitment. On, consideration of the materials on record and the submissions, the orders passed by High Court are

¶43

B unsustainable. Thus, orders of High Court are set aside. [Para 24 and 25] (667-E-H; 668-A-B]

¶44

.1.3. The number of appointments has gone down very low, no uniform policy of recruitment is discernible. C The Trust shoul_d frame clear policies of recruitment from these categories and give them due publicity to avoid any scope of abuse and unfair labour practice. [Para 26] (638E-F]

¶45

--..::

¶46

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. vs. U.P. D Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh & Ors. (1995) 2 sec 1, Relied on.

¶47

Case Law Reference:

¶48

j.

¶49

(1995) 2 sec 1 Relied on Para 21

¶50

E

¶51

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6754 of 2008.

¶52

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.10.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in M.A.T. No. 2601 of 2004.

¶53

F

¶54

G.E. Vahanvati, S.G., M.N. Krishnamani, Kalyan Bandopadyay, AV. Rangam, Buddya A. Rangadhan, Upendra Roy, D. Bharat Kumar, Anand, Azim H. Laskar, Abijit Sengupta, Rana Mukherjee, Abhijit Sengupta and M. lndrani for the G^{appearing parties.}

¶55

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶56

AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties

H 2. Leave granted

j

655

--{

;i

,) ~

BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA & ORS. v. AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

..

)"

~

"I-,

... y

In times of fast shrinking employment opportunities, A trade apprentices who have completed their training staked their claim on an old practice, long discontinued, under which the Calcutta Port Trust in the port's Mechanical Engineering department used to make recruitment of trained apprentices' and wards of employees dying in harness in the ratio of 1: 1. B

¶70

Three hundred and twenty one trained apprentices (respondents before this Court; hereinafter referred to as 'the trained apprentices') joined together and approached the Calcutta High Court in WP No. 21877(W)/99. They made the c grievance that in disregard of the practice earlier followed, the Calcutta Port Trust was giving appointments only on compassionate grounds to the wards of their employees dying in harness and had completely stopped the recruitment of trained apprentices. They sought appropriate directions from D the High Court asking the Calcutta Port Trust to app,oint trained apprentices equal in number to those appointed on compassionate basis during the past many years so as to restore the 1 : 1 ratio between the two groups. At that stage the High Court did not pass any positive order in the matter but disposed of the writ petition directing the Chairman, Calcutta E Port Trust to examine the claim of the trained apprentices and to dispose of their representation after giving them an opportunity of hearing.

¶71

In compliance with the order of the Court the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust heard representatives of the trained apprentices and examined their claim. He turned down the claim by a reasoned order dated July 5, 2000. From the order it appears that the trained apprentices raised three grievances/ demands before him. One, the Calcutta Port Trust should not fill up the vacancies of Firemen in the Marine department by transfer of unskilled labourers from the Mechanical Engineering department. Two, the Port Trust should maintain a list of trade apprentices who completed the apprenticeship course in the Port for consideration for employment against future vacancies

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 16 S.C.R.

656

G

A and three, the vacancies of unskilled labourers in the MehanicatEngineering departmnt should be filled up by the , dependents of employees dying in h.arness and trained apprentices in 1: 1 ratio. In regard to the third demand the trained apprentices further claimed that during the last 20 years the B^{ratio was not properly maintained andinorder to restore it} trained apprentices should be appointed in equal numbers to those appuinted on compassionate basis. The Chairman noted 'that the posts-of Fireman in the Marine department were never filled up by transfer of unskilled labourers from the Mechanical c^{Engineering department; hence, the first grievance/ demand of} the trained apprentices was quite unfounded. As regards maintenance of list of tra'Cle apprentices for appointment as Firemen the Chairman noted that the Trust was passing through great financial stringency and was burdened with surplus D^{workforce. As a result, the Trust was not ina position to take} in any more unskilled labourers or to make appointments on other posts. He further noted that there was already a list of about 1200 persons, dependents of the· employees who died in harness. Similarly, a list oftrained apprentices was already maintained by the Trust in light of the Central Government E instructinns and the decisions of this Court for giving preference to them in the matter of direct recruitment to the post(s), matching their skills and qualifications. As per the instructions, being followed by the Trust, a trained apprentice is not required to get his name sponsored by aoy employment exchange and F he is also given relaxation of age bar to the extent of the period of training. Thus there was no occasion to maintain any other list of trained apprentices for filling up only the vacancies in the Marine department. In conclusion the Chairman passed the following order:

¶80

"Notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove it is reiterated that if any occasion arises to fill up the posts of USL under Mechanical Engineering department by Direct recruitment the passed out Trade apprentices may also be considered."

H

-f

~

-...(

~

x

f )(

F

"' 'f

BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTT A &⁶⁵⁷ ORS. v. AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

t

,) ~

) )..

-4

'· ~ ::4

The trained apprentices once again went to the High A Court in WP No. 9259 (W) of 2001 re-agitating their claims and challenging the order of the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust.

¶97

This time a learned Single Judge of the Court allowed the writ petition by judgment and order dated June 11, 2004, giving the following directions to the Calcutta Port Trust:

¶98

13

¶99

"For the above reasons the writ petition should succeed. Accordingly, I allow the writ petition. The order impugned is hereby set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to consider the cases of the petitioners in accordance with the decision,s that the respondent Port Trust had taken for giving employment to its trade apprentice in the ratio 1 :1 to be maintained with the candidates from the died in harness category. Since the respondent Port Trust has already given employment to the died in harness category candidates in excess of the quota available to such category, the respondents are hereby directed to take immediate steps for rectifying the situation and restoring the balance in the quota meant for the two categories. For implementing this order the respondent shall immediately frame a scheme on the basis of such scheme they shall consider the case of the petitioners. The scheme shall be prepared and the names of the petitioners shall be placed in an appropriate panel within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order by them. After preparing the scheme and the panel, the respondents shall consider the cases of the petitioners according to the scheme and panel against the available vacancies, in terms of the government order issued in the year 1983 and their own decisions as quoted hereinbefore."

D

E

G

Against the judgment of the single Judge the appellant, Calcutta Pc11 Trust preferred an appeal (MAT 2601 of 2004) before the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal was dismissed by judgment and order dated May 10, 2007 and

¶104

H

¶105

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

¶106

658

¶107

I F i

¶108

' r

¶109

;.t- t l

¶110

A confirming the order of the single judge the Division Bench made the following observations and directions:

¶111

"In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly issued appropriate directions for considering the cases of the writ B petitioners and giving employment as ex-trade Apprentices along with the died-in-harness category candidates .in the ratio of 1 :1 in the matter of giving employment in the Kolkata Port trust pursuant to the promise given on behalf of the said appellants and as c mentioned in the written communication of Labour Advisor dated 4th January, .1985 and further considering the guidelines issued by the Government of India and mentioned in the circular dated 21st April, 1983."

¶112

D 9. The appellant has brought the matter in appeal to this Court.

¶113

Mr. G. Vahahvati, learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellants submhted that the orders passed E by the High Court were quite bad and illegal. The High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the appellant to give employment to three hundred and twentyone wdt petitioners without any consideration of the appellant's requirements, its financial position and other similar issues. Moreover, the High Court arrived at its conclusions on a complete misreading and F misinterpretation of the relevant government guidelines and circulars and communications issued by the Port Trust. The Solicitor General emphasised that there was never ever any promise made by the appellant to absorb the trained apprentices in employment and the High Court completely G misread the communication of the Labour Advisor of the Trust dated January 4, 1985 and the guidelines contained in the circular dated April 21, 1983 issued by the Government of India.

¶114

The Solicitor General stated that in the 1970s the H Calcutta Port Trust indeed followed the practice of making

659

_J ~ ,.)

--; ~ ~

BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTIA & ORS. v. AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

~

~

r

.,

'1

recruitment of unskilled labour in the Mechanical Engineering department of the Port from amongst the dependents of employees dying in harness and trained apprentices in the ratio of 1 :1. He, however, made it clear that the practice was based neither on any statutory provision nor on agreement(s) of any binding nature; it was followed by the Trust unilaterally having regard to the circumstances obtaining at that time. He further clarified that this practice was confined only to the Mechanical Engineering department while the other departments had their own recruitment policy, depending upon their respective requirements. He then took us, one by one to the circulars, decisions, communications etc. relied upon by the High Court for making the impugned directions.

¶125

First in the series is a circular bearing no. 0.0. DECT1-83/AP dated April 21, 1983 issued by the Ministr/ of Labour and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour), Government of India. By this circular all the ministries were urged to endeavour to ensure that 50% of the total semi- skilled and skilled categories of jobs in the establishment under them should be filled by direct recruitment. Further, that 50% of the vacancies available for direct recruitment should be filled by trained apprentices and first preference be given to apprentices completing the training course under that establishment. Para. 2.2 of the circular read as follows:

¶126

"50% of the direct recruitment vacancies may be filled by trained apprentices first preference being given to the apprentices trained by the said establishment and thereafter to those trained by other establishment."

¶127

Next is a letter of January 4, 1985 from the Labour Adviser & Industrial Relations Officer of the Port Trust to the Joint General Secretary of the Calcutta Port Shramik Union. The letter is on the subject of recruitment of the ex-trade apprentices and refers to some' discussion held in that regard. As this letter is the mainstay of the High Court judgments it is reproduced below in full.

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

. "

,.._ (

660

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

"

.. '

i- I I ~ i , .. ~ y

A

"Subject: Recruitment of Ex-Trade Apprentices

¶145

-f

¶146

bear Sir;

¶147

-Kindly recall the discussion held in Chairman's room on 3.1.1985 on the above subject.

¶148

B

¶149

Ex-Trade Apprentices were being recruited along with the died in harness candidates in the ratio of 1 :1.- This is now been stopped in view of the ban imposed by Government on direct recruitment. Ex-Trade Apprentices c will be .recruited again as and when the ban is lift~d and their quota will be restored."

¶150

It is this letter that is mainly relied on by the High Court to hold that the Port Trust was bound by its promise to recruit the trained apprentices in the same ratio as dependents of D employees dying in harness. The Solicitor General submitted that it is quite unreasonable to read this letter as an unqualified promise of recruitment of trained apprentices in all future times. The letter simply said the ex-trade apprentices would be recruited and their quota would be r,estored again as and when E the ban on direct recruitment was lifted. He pointed out that in the order of the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust that came under challenge before the High Court it was likewise stated that the Trust was n6t in a position to provide employment opportunity to the trained apprentices on account of the twin problems of F actuate' financial distress and surplus workforce. but as and when the need arises to induct unskilled labour in the Mechanical Engineering department the trained apprentices would also be considered for recruitment. There is thus no change in the stand of the Trust and there is no question of G^{enforcement of any unconditional promise made by the Trust.}

'·

..,

,.

--'f

The Solicitor General referred to the decision in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh & Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 1 H^{and submitted that onsimilar facts this Court held that the High}

¶157

~

¶158

BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA & 661 ORS. v. AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

¶159

~ Court was wrong in giving direction to give employment to the trainees. In regard to enforcement of promise the Court, in· paragraph 10 of the decision, ob.served and held as follows:

¶160

A

¶161

"For a promise to be enforceable, the same has, however, to be clear and unequivocal. We do not read 8 any such promise 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 C that the State Government stated in its letter No. 735/386~ 16(T)-79 dated 12-11-1979 that where such apprentices are available, direct recruitment should not be made. Indeed, the Government of lhdia in its letter dated 23-31983 even desired reservation of 50 per cent vacancies D for apprentice trainees."

¶162

C

¶163

(emphasis added)

¶164

Proceeding then to examine the rights of the ex-trade apprentices under .the Apprentices Act, 1961 the Court, in paragraph 12 of the decision, laid down as follows:

¶165

E

¶166

" ,,._

¶167

"In the background of what has been noted above, we state that thefollowing would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful completion Qf their training:

¶168

F

¶169

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

¶170

(2) . For this, a trainee would not be required to get his G name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India vs. N. Hargopal would permit this. ·)

¶171

(3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the

H

r'

,, ~

BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTT A & 663 ORS. v. AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

¶176

they have been trained or in other Government/Private^A sector establishment. I shall be grateful if suitable steps are initiated by your Ministry to:

¶177

(a) fill up the seats located by engaging apprentices under the Apprenticeship Act for utilization of B existing training facilities to the fullest extent;

¶178

~

¶179

(b) improve the quality of training by closer monitoring of th.e scheme at the scheme at the shop floor level; and

¶180

c

¶181

(c) ensµr~ that preference is given to passed out £3pprentices for recruitment in regular jobs matching their skills and qualifications.

¶182

(emphasis added)

¶183

D

¶184

The Solicitor General submitted that the policy of the Government of India is to give preference to the passed out apprentices for recruitment in regular jobs matching their skills and qualification.

¶185

E

¶186

The Solicitor General reiterated that in the communication of the Legal Advisor of the Trust dated January 4, 1985 there was no promise to recruit the trained apprentices. He further submitted that in any event after the legal position was made absolutely clear by the decision in U.P. State Road F ~ Transport Corporation. and following the decision the - Government of India had also modified its policy regarding recruitment of trained apprentices it was completely unreasonable to make that letter the basis for the direction to appoint three hundred and twenty one trained apprentic~s. He G further stated that even though the decision in U.P. State Road ~ Transport Corporation was brought to the notice of the High Court it unfortunately persisted in reading the letter dated " January 4, 1985 as making the promise for appointment of trained apprentices.

~

~

H

SUPREME CO!.JRT REPORTS

[2008) 16 S.C.R.

664

)

A 19. As regards the appointment ©f trained apprentices in equal number to appointments on compassionete basis the Solicitor General submitted that was a practice followed by the Trust at one point of time long ago when there was adequate employment potential in.the port. After more than 25 years and s under vastly changed conditions, both in law and in the circumstances concerning the Calcutta Port, it was no longer possible to follow the practice and to link up the .appointments from two entirely different categories. The Solicitor General stated that in the past thirty years though ex-trade apprentices c were appointed in substantial numbers, depending on the exigencies in certain years, the ratio of 1 : 1 between the two groups was never maintained. In recent years of course, employment opportunity for every group had practically dried up. In this regard he brought to our notice the following table giving the break-up of appointments made as unskilled labourer 0 in the ry1echanical Engineering department from different sources from 1979 till 2000, when this case started.

¶196

Year of Recrui- tment	By died -in- harness candi- dates	By Ex- Trade App re- ntices	By Casual work- ers	ByST candi- dates	By sports person	Total
. 1979	54	98	140	5	- ){	297
1980	84	82	1	x	x	167
1981	31	x	x	x	x	31
1982	71	54	14	x	2	141
1983	6	23	1	x	x	30
1984	45	9	x	x	x	54
I-TOTAL	291	266.	156	5	2	720
1985	110	62	1	x	x	173
1986	37	39	x	x	x	76

E

F.

G

-1

'

H

,

BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA & 665 ORS. v. AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

¶205

(

¶206

y

¶207

1987	1· ...	~~.~~x	x	x	x	1
1988 ,..,	·14	4	x	x	x	18
1989	11	5	x	20	x	36
1990	x	2	)(	x	1	3
II-TOTAL	f73 ..	112	1	20	1	307
1991	x	3	x	x	3	6
1992	x "	x	x	x	x	x
1993	x	x	x	x	x	x
1994	x	x	x	x	x	x
Ill-TOTAL	x	3	x	x	3	6
1995	25	x	x	x	x	25
1996	4	x	x	x	x	4
1997	9	x	x	x	x	9
1998	2	1	21	x	x	24
1999	1	x	8	x	x	9
2000	1	X·	x	x	x	1
IV-TOTAL	42	1	29	x	x	72
TOTAL OFI,II,Ill &IV	506	382	186	25	6	1105

¶208

The Table clearly shows the number of appointments from different groups tapering off. In the ten years from 1991 to 2000, 42 persons were employed on compassionate basis and only 4 persons from amongst the ex-trade apprentices. The Solicitor General stated that appointments on compassionate basis were made only in dire cases that had the potential of causing labour unrest creating major problems. He submitted

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶218

[2008] 16 S.C.R.

¶219

666

¶220

.... / I i ~ I r' ' '

¶221

..

¶222

¶223

A that in present conditions it is not possible to link-up the recruitments from the two categories and the High Court was in error in giving the impugned direction.

¶224

We find much substance in the submissions made by B^{theSolicitorGeneral. Like the caseof}^{U.P.State Road} Transport Corporation we find it difficult to read in ~he communication of January 4, 1985 any clear, unequivocal and unqualified promise that may be enforceable after a quarter of century under vastly different conditions. We are also in c^{agreement that the recruitments from the two categories cannot} be linked-up and made contingent on each other.

¶225

Mr. Krishnamani, learneo counsel appearing for the respondents, the trained apprentices supported the judgments of the High Court, He submitted tha.t the High Court rightly held D that the letter of the Legal Advisor dated January 4, 1985 made the promise of recruitment of the trained apprentices and restoration of the ratio between the two groups as and when the ban on direct recruitment irnposed by the Central Government was lifted. Mr. Krishnamani further submitted that E^{the ban. on recruitment of ex-trade apprentices was lifted by} letter dated July 30, 1986 addressed by the Secretary of the Trust to the Joint General Secretary, Calcutta Port Shramik Union and with the lifting of the ban the promise made in the earlier letter of January 4, 1985 became enforceable and F^{binding.TheletterofJuly30,1986referredtoby Mr.} Krishnamani is as follows:

'•

"""'

~ -f

"Dear Sir,

G

"Subject: Absorption of the Trade Apprentices under the S.R.C. (ex.C.H.E.'s Deptt.)

¶232

Reference your letter .No.~C/8/645 dated the 16th June, 1986.

¶233

y

¶234

The case has been considered by the Chairman. It has

H

667

.,,

/>Ir-

,I -.

., +-

~ ..

BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA & ORS. v. AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

¶243

been decided to resume recruitment or ex-Trade Apprentices, as per their quota against the available vacancies of U.S.L. subject to work requirement a_nd on observance of SC/ST reservation orders. The General Manager (Ship Repair Complex) is being suitably advised in the matter."

¶244

A

¶245

B

¶246

This letter is of July 30, 1986 and a reference to the table giving year-wise appointments would show that in the year 1986, 39 ex-trade apprentices were appointed against 37 persons appointed under the scheme of compassionate appointments. c Thus the Trust did exactly what was stated in this letter.

¶247

We are unable to accept that this letter on its own or read along with the earlier communication dated January 4, 1985 constitutes an unqualified, enforceable promise or lays down a mode of recruitment on a permanent basis or creates D any rights in favour of the trained apprentices.

¶248

Moreover, the letter does not answer the main question in the case, i.e., how could the High Court give direction for appointment of over three hundred trained apprentices E regardless of the 'lacancy position and the other relevant considerations. Confronted with the question Mr. Krishnamani submitted that the order of the High Court should not be understood to mean that all the respondents must be appointed forthwith. The High Court asked the Trust to evolve a scheme F for their absorption in a phased manner. When pointed out that if the directions of the High Court are to be understood in the way suggested by him then their will not be much difference between the High Court order and the order passed by the vital difference between the two was that the order Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust, Mr. Krishnamani submitted the of the G Chairman, Port Trust sought to do away with the parity between the two groups in the matter of recruitment. He further submitted that the respondents' main claim was to adhere to and restore the parity between the ex-trade apprentices and those covered by the scheme of compassionate appointments in the matter H

¶249

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

668

[2008) 16 S.C.R.

~ t

y

A of recruitment. We are entirely unable·to accept the claim of the respondents. As stated by the Solicitor General the ex-trade apprentices were at one time appointed in equal numbers to those appointed under the compassionate appointments scheme but the practice was not on the basis of any statutory B^{provision or any agreement between the Trust and the workmen.} We are equally unable to see any rational basis for such parity between the two groups. It might have served te interests of a certain .group in the past and it may appear- to the present respondents as a handy bargaining point but. in the long term c^{it will be fair neither to ex-trade apprentice$ nor to those coming} under the scheme of compassionate appointment. There is no comprehensible connection between the two groups nor is there any rational basis for parity between the two in the matter of recruitment.

¶256

D

¶257

On a consideration of the materials on record and the rival submissions we are of the view that the orders passed by High Court are plainly unsustainable. We accordingly set aside the orders of the High Court and dismiss the writ petitions.

-f

-,..

-!._

. ~

~

•

E 26. Before parting with the records of the case we may, however, observe that though the number of appointments has gone down very low, no uniform policy of recruitment is discernible. For example three trained apprentices were recruited in 1993 and one in 1998. It is not clear under what F^{policy those recruitmentsweremadeor for that matter what}

¶265

policy the Trust is following in the matter of compassionate appointments. The Trust shoutd frame clear policies of recruitment from these categories and give them due publicity to avoid any scope of abuse and unfair labour pra1:tice.

¶266

G 27. In the result, the appeal is allowed subject to the aforesaid observations and directions. There shall be no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.,

N.J.

-+

·-

Board of Trustees for Port of Calcutta & Ors. v. Avijit Kumar Ray & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Board of Trustees for Port of Calcutta & Ors. v. Avijit Kumar Ray & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi versus L. H. Patel & Anr.

Mangal Singh & Anr. versus Kishan Singh & Ors.

Ishwaragouda & Ors. versus Mallikarjun Gowda & Ors. .

Narayan Prasad Lohia versus Nikunj Kumar Lohia

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax versus State Bank of India and Ors.

K. Laxmanan versus Thekkayil Padmini & Ors.