- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22. 01. 2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 1842/2002 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petition has been dismissed.
(2.) THE appellant was a Mechanical Diploma engineer. He was selected on 13. 03. 2000 as an apprentice by the Board constituted under the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961' ). After selection, he reported to the Chief Engineer, PHED for training and an agreement was executed between the Chief Engineer, the employer, and the appellant for providing him training for a period of one year as an apprentice.
(3.) THE terms of the agreement was that 50% money spent on the training shall be borne by the Board and balance 50% to be borne by the appellant. The appellant's training commenced from 04. 05. 2000 and stayed till 17. 06. 2001. His submission is that since he has been engaged for a period of over one year, therefore, he remained under the employment of the employer and in terms of Section 22 (2) of the Act of 1961, the employer is bound to give him employment and keep him engaged. For convenience, Section 22 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 is extracted below and reads as under:-22. Offer and acceptance of employment.- (1) 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 in his establishment, nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to accept an employer under the employer. (2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1), where there is a condition in a contract of apprenticeship that the apprentice shall, after the successful completion of the 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: provided that where such period or remuneration is not, in the opinion of the apprenticeship Adviser, reasonable, he may revise such period or remuneration so as to make it reasonable, and the period or remuneration so revised shall be deemed to be the period or remuneration agreed to between the apprentice and the employer. The aforesaid provision of law is of no help to the appellant. The agreement executed between the appellant and his employer does not stipulate any such condition in the agreement. It is simplicitor agreement for a period of one year, which terminated by flux of time. Section 22 (2) of the Act of 1961, therefore, is not applicable to the case of the appellant. He has also relied upon the judgment delivered in case title U. P. State Road Transport corporation and another Vs. U. P. Parivahan Nigam shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1115, and judgment delivered in case title narinder Kumar and others Vs. The State of Punjab and others, reported in AIR 1985 SC 275. We have examined these judgments, which are distinguishable and deal with different facts and are not applicable to the case of the appellant. No other point has been urged before us. We do not find any merit in the appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.;