Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Chairman/Md, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. And Others v. Sadashib Behera And Others

Supreme Court Of India

Jan 5, 2005

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

Respondent 1, Sadashib Behera, completed a certificate course in the welder trade from an Industrial Training Institute in 1992 and thereafter underwent one-year apprenticeship training with Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (MCL). When subsequent appointments were contemplated, he was interviewed but ultimately not offered employment. Behera filed OJC No. 13025 of 1996 before the Orissa High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel MCL to appoint him as a welder. The High Court, by order dated 7-12-1999, held that nine welder posts existed (five in the general category) and directed MCL to appoint Behera within two months.

MCL filed a review petition asserting that only seven welder posts had actually been sanctioned and that workload reductions and the Government of India’s reservation policy precluded filling additional general-category posts. The High Court, on 21-11-2002, rejected the plea, treated the earlier disclosure of nine posts as MCL’s own assertion, and directed that one of two longstanding reserved vacancies be “dereserved” so Behera could be appointed.

MCL thereafter appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The present judgment decides that appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the High Court erred in presuming that nine welder posts were sanctioned and in directing appointment of the respondent by dereserving a post reserved under the Government of India’s policy.
Whether an apprentice who has completed training with an employer acquires any legal right to permanent employment in the absence of a contractual clause as contemplated by Sections 4, 22 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and the Apprenticeship Rules, 1991.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants (Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.)

Only seven welder posts had ever been sanctioned; the “nine-post” document relied upon by the High Court was merely a proposal, not an approved sanction.
The Government of India’s reservation policy bound the establishment; therefore, available vacancies could not be shifted from reserved to general category.
Workload had diminished since 1998 and a voluntary-retirement scheme was under way, further reducing the necessity to fill additional posts.

Respondent 1 (Sadashib Behera)

Based on earlier affidavits filed by MCL, nine welder vacancies were available, five in the general category; his merit position was fifth, entitling him to appointment.
Two reserved posts had remained unfilled since 1996; hence one could be dereserved to accommodate him.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s earlier orders rested on an erroneous factual assumption—only seven, not nine, welder posts had been sanctioned by the competent authority. Once the correct figure is accepted, reservation requirements under the Government of India’s policy leave no unreserved vacancy available for the respondent. The High Court therefore lacked authority to compel MCL to dereserve a reserved post.

The Court further examined the statutory scheme governing apprentices. Sections 2(aa), 2(aaa), 4, 6, 7 and 22 of the Apprentices Act, 1961, together with Rule 6 and Schedule V of the Apprenticeship Rules, 1991, make it clear that an employer is not obliged to offer permanent employment to an apprentice unless the apprenticeship contract expressly so provides and is registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser. As no such contractual term existed, Behera possessed no enforceable right to appointment.

Without a legal entitlement to employment and in light of binding reservation rules, the writ of mandamus issued by the High Court was unsustainable.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal is allowed; the High Court’s orders dated 7-12-1999 and 21-11-2002 are set aside. No order as to costs.

Implications: The decision denies the respondent any right to appointment and reaffirms that: (i) factual errors concerning sanctioned posts cannot ground mandatory employment orders; (ii) courts may not override statutory reservation policies; and (iii) completion of apprenticeship, absent a contractual commitment, does not create a right to permanent employment. The judgment applies established statutory principles and sets no new precedent beyond clarifying their application to the facts.

Show all summary ...

G.P Mathur, J.— Leave granted.

2. This petition, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21-11-2002 of the Orissa High Court by which the review petition filed by the appellants for reviewing the order dated 7-12-1999 was disposed of with certain directions.

3. Respondent 1 Sadashib Behera passed certificate examination in welders trade from Industrial Training Institute in the year 1992. Thereafter, he did one year apprenticeship training in the welders trade with Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. It appears that some appointments were to be made in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. for which purpose he was called for interview, but he was not given any appointment order. He then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution being OJC No. 13025 of 1996, praying that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the appellants in the present appeal to give him appointment on the post of welder. Reference in the writ petition was made to the judgment and order dated 3-9-1996 of the High Court passed in OJC No. 644 of 1996 which indicated that some vacancies still existed in the establishment. The appellants herein, who were respondents in the writ petition before the High Court, filed a counter-affidavit and it was pleaded therein that they were bound by the reservation policy notified by the Government of India and that the stand of the writ petitioner that some posts of welders were lying vacant is not correct. The High Court held that there were 9 vacancies for the post of welder, out of which 5 were reserved for general category. The writ petitioner's placement in the merit list was 5th and as the person who was placed at number 4 had not joined, he was entitled to be appointed on the post of welder. The writ petition was, accordingly, disposed of by the order dated 7-12-1999 and a direction was issued to the appellants herein to appoint Respondent 1 on the post of welder within a period of two months.

4. The appellants filed a review petition mainly on the ground that there were only 7 sanctioned posts of welders and not 9 as had been mentioned in the judgment. It was pointed out that the document which was annexed along with the counter-affidavit as Annexure A was not an order of sanction of posts but was only a proposal made to the authorities for sanctioning 9 posts in the welders trade. The competent authority had in fact sanctioned only 7 posts in the said trade. It was also submitted in the review petition that from the year 1998 onwards, the workload had considerably reduced, as a result there was no necessity of filling up the fourth post in the welders trade from amongst the general category. It was further submitted that the management had also taken a decision to introduce a voluntary retirement scheme on account of reduction in work and to reduce the expenditure. The review petition was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 21-11-2002 which is the subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal and the relevant part of the order is being reproduced below:

“Upon hearing the counsel for parties and on perusal of the relevant papers, we find that in two separate affidavits affirmed by responsible officers of the petitioners filed in the writ petition it was stated as if nine vacant posts were available/sanctioned. Having not correctly stated the facts, for which, the petitioners are themselves responsible, their prayer to review the order passed in the writ petition is not reasonable.

It is now submitted by Shri Patnaik, counsel for the petitioners that only five persons were appointed as welders, but two reserved posts (one for SC and one for ST) have not been filled up.

In view of the fact that since 1996 those two reserved posts are lying vacant and the petitioners' claim being legitimate, we direct the petitioners to dereserve one reserved post and give appointment to Opposite Party 1 within two months hence.”

5. In our opinion, the view taken by the High Court is clearly unsustainable. It is not disputed that in fact only 7 posts in the welders trade had been sanctioned by the competent authority. The judgment dated 7-12-1999 by which the writ petition had been disposed of earlier had proceeded on the basis that there were 9 sanctioned posts out of which 5 posts were meant for general category and the writ petitioner (Respondent 1 in the present appeal) having secured 5th rank in the said category, he was entitled to be given an appointment. The appellants filed the review petition explaining the mistake which had occurred on account of the fact that a document which was merely a proposal made to the higher authorities for sanctioning the post was treated to be an order of sanction of posts. When the sanctioned posts were only 7, the writ petitioner could not claim any right to be given an appointment having regard to the reservation policy which was applicable to the establishment of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. on account of the notification issued by the Government of India. The direction issued by the High Court in the impugned order to the effect that one of the two reserved posts lying vacant be dereserved and appointment be given to Respondent 1 is, therefore, erroneous. The appellants are fully bound by the reservation policy and it is not open to the High Court to issue a writ for disregarding the said reservation policy which had been enforced by the notification issued by the Government of India and then to give appointment to a general category candidate on a post which is meant for a reserved category candidate.

6. There is another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration. The whole stand of the writ petitioner (Respondent 1 in this appeal) was that he had undergone apprenticeship training with Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and, therefore, he was entitled to be appointed on the post of welder. The Apprentices Act was enacted in the year 1961 and as the preamble shows that it is an Act to provide for the regulation and control of training of apprentices and for matters connected therewith. Section 2(aa) defines an “apprentice” and it means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship. Section 2(aaa) defines “apprenticeship training” and it means a course of training in any industry or establishment undergone in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship and under prescribed terms and conditions which may be different for different categories of apprentices. Section 4 provides that no person shall be engaged as an apprentice to undergo apprenticeship training unless he has entered into a contract of apprenticeship with the employer and the training shall be deemed to have commenced on the date on which the contract of apprenticeship has been entered into. It further provides that every such contract shall be sent by the employer to the Apprenticeship Adviser for registration. Sections 6 and 7 lay down that the period of apprenticeship training shall be specified in the contract of apprenticeship and the same shall terminate on the expiry of the period of apprenticeship. Rule 6 of the Apprenticeship Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) mandates that the contract shall be sent by the employer for registration within three months of date on which it was signed. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 provides that the obligation of the employer and that of the trade apprentice shall be as specified in Schedule V or VI, as the case may be. Clause (10) of Schedule V which relates to the obligation of the employer reads as follows:

“(10) It shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer any employment to the apprentice on completion of 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 employer.”

7. These provisions show that apprentice is a person who is undergoing a training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship duly registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser and the employer who is imparting training is under no obligation to offer any employment to such a person. The legislature has made the aforesaid position clear by making a specific provision in this regard namely Section 22 of the Act and sub-section (1) thereof lays down that 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. Sub-section (2) however provides that notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1) where there is a condition in a contract of apprenticeship that an apprentice shall, after successful completion of apprenticeship training, serve the employer, the employer shall, on such completion, be bound to offer suitable employment to the apprentice, and the apprentice shall be bound to serve the employer in that capacity for such period and on such remuneration as may be specified in the contract. Thus the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder show that in absence of any condition in the contract which is entered into between the employer and the apprentice at the time of commencement of his apprenticeship training and which is registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser to the effect that the apprentice shall serve the employer, an apprentice cannot claim any right to get an employment on successful completion of his training. It is not the case of Respondent 1 that in the contract of apprenticeship there was any condition that after completion of training he would serve the employer and in absence of such a condition, the employer namely the appellants are not bound to offer any employment to them. In the absence of any legal right inhering in the writ petitioner (Respondent 1 herein) no writ of mandamus could be issued commanding the appellants to give an appointment to him on the post of welder.

8. For the reasons discussed above, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 7-12-1999 and also the order dated 21-11-2002 of the High Court are set aside. No order as to costs.