- (1.) THESE batch of writ petitions have been filed by the employees of the respondent-Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (for short, 'BHEL') having its unit at Ranipet. The admitted position is that the petitioners have either completed Diploma in engineering course or underwent I.T.I. training. They were also trained apprentices in terms of the Apprentices Act, 1961.
(2.) REGARDING the first writ petition (i.e.) W.P.No.11293 of 2006, it is admitted by both sides that it has become infructuous, as the very same petitioners have filed subsequent writ petitions. Therefore no relief need be granted in this writ petition. With reference to the other writ petitions, the case of the petitioners, as contended by Mr. V. Prakash, learned senior counsel for the workmen, is that the issue involved is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in respect of similarly placed apprentices in the Tiruchirappalli unit of the respondent-BHEL. He relied upon the judgment in W.P.(MD) Nos.8675 of 2006 and batch cases dated 12.10.2007, wherein this Court held that a trained apprentice under a contract of apprenticeship under the 1961 Act may not have preference as laid down by the Supreme Court for any employment under his employer. At the maximum he can have a relaxation from the upper age and from any test prescribed for the post and also waiver of sponsorship from the employment exchange. This Court distinguishing those line of judgments of the Supreme Court and after following the decision of the Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others (1985) 1 SCC 130) has held that if there is a promise of employment for the trained apprentices either in the form of policy or in the form of settlement or a term provided under the apprenticeship contract itself, then those issues may be covered by Section 22(2) of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and not by Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act. In that judgment, this Court also placed heavy reliance upon the recruitment policy laid by the BHEL, wherein absorption of artisan apprentices and supervisory trainees as regular employees have been contemplated. There was also a reference to the Section 12(3) settlement signed between the workmen and the BHEL in respect of Ranipet plant dated 26.10.2005.
(3.) THE said judgment of the Madurai Bench of this Court was taken on appeal by the respondent-BHEL before the Division Bench sitting at Madurai in W.A.(MD) Nos.685 to 687 of 2007. THE Division Bench presided by P.K.Misra, J. by judgment dated 14.5.2008 dismissed those Writ Appeals. THE Division Bench has held that in respect of the respondent-BHEL, there is a promotion policy guaranteeing employment to trained apprentices and a reference was also made to the settlement reached at Ranipet. THE Division Bench also rejected the BHEL's attempt to produce the certified copies of agreement, wherein the right of employment has been denied. However, the Division Bench held that those agreements do not relate to the writ petitioners before the Division Bench and therefore in the absence of the BHEL producing the true terms of the contract, the copies produced by them with reference to other employees was not accepted by the Division Bench. In the present set of cases, all the petitioners were trained by the BHEL plant at Ranipet. THErefore, the learned senior counsel for the workmen placed heavy reliance upon the Division Bench's order and stated that it is in no way different from the case of employees relating to the Tiruchirappalli plant. Mr. B.T. Seshadri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BHEL in three writ petitions, W.P.Nos.5929, 5930 & 5545 of 2000 contended that originally these employees were denied any right of interview on the ground of age bar. Subsequently that bar was removed and they were called for interview, but they did not qualify for the post. Therefore it was an unfortunate situation that they could not get selected. He also submitted that the post of Chargeman is a promotional post and therefore every post need not be filled up by direct recruitment by promoting these persons directly.;