Arun Madan, J. - (1.) The petitioner who was appointed as trainee in Jaipur Metals & Electrical Ltd. (for short the company') and whose services were terminated in the said capacity by the respondents, has challenged his termination by way of the instant writ petition on the grounds inter-alia as to whether it was open to the company to terminate his services once he had successfully completed his training? Whether it was not binding on the management of the company to regularise his service after completion of the training period? Whether it was open to the respondent company by virtue of sub-clause (5) of the contract of apprenticeship to have imposed the condition that the management shall have a right to terminate the service of apprentice during the training period or on completion thereof without assigning any reason and in case such trainee leaves the training before its completion, whether it was open to the management of the company to have deducted the stipend amount deposited by way of security? and whether the impugned action of the management will not tantamount to contravention of sub-sec. (3) of Section 4 of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961' hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1961 being inconsistent with Section 7 of the said Act which envisages the mode of termination of the contract of the trainee in view of the settled law that no terms can be imposed in violation of law and hence any terms imposed by the company which are contrary to clause (5) of the agreement executed between the parties is void and hence not enforceable?
(2.) The facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties as briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as trainee apprentice with the respondent company vide order, dated 1.1.1986 for a period of one year. The appointment of the petitioner was further extended by the company for a period of one year vide order, dated 18.11.1986; whereas as per clause No. 1 of the terms of appointment (Annexure 1) the training period could be extended for the maximum period of six months. According to the said clause the petitioner was entitled for the monthly consolidated stipend of Rs. 450.00 and as per clause 5 the management shall have a right to terminate the trainee apprentice during the period of training without assigning any reason whatsoever and in case the trainee decides to leave the training before its completion, the amount deducted from the stipend shall stand forfeited to the company and as per clause 7 after successful completion of the training, subject to their being any vacancy, the trainee shall be eligible for applying for the same when his case shall be considered on merits alongwith other candidates coming from open market, he shall have no preferential claim or right for being considered for absorption.
(3.) From the perusal of the office order, dated 18.11.1986 it is apparent that the petitioner was communicated by the management that the petitioner was given an option to complete the second year of his training on successful completion of the first year of training w.e.f. 18.11.1986 and as per the revised training scheme of the company he was to be given monthly stipend of Rs.600.00 w.e.f. 18.11.1986 while all other terms and conditions of appointment were to remain the same. Thereafter the petitioner vide office order, dated 17.12.1987 was informed that since he had successfully completed his second year of training he was allowed monthly stipend at the rate of Rs.850.00 w.e.f. 18.11.1987 for the third year of his apprenticeship training during which period he was again made to work as trainee apprentice instead of regularising his services contrary to the conditions as stipulated in the letter of appointment vide Annexure 1 dated 1.1.1986 according to which the maximum period for which the training could be extended, was six months in all with effect from 1.1.1986. Thereafter by an office order, dated 29.11.1988 vide Annexure 4 the services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 30.11.1988 which the petitioner has assailed on the grounds inter-alia that the impugned order of termination was illegal being contrary to Regulations of the company.;