YASHPAL SINGH AND ORS. Vs. H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, the same are taken up together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, in order to maintain clarity, facts of CWP No. 1325 have been taken into consideration.

(2.) RESPONDENT -Board issued different advertisements vide Annexure P -2 annexed with all the writ petitions whereby applications were invited to appoint Apprentice Assistant Engineers, (Electrical/Civil)/Apprentice Junior Engineers (Electrical in different trades) and Apprentice Assistant Electrician/Assistant Linemen on merit basis for a period of one year, as per terms and conditions of Apprenticeship Act, 1961 on monthly fixed stipend of Rs. 10,000/ -, 6,000/ - and Rs. 5,000/ -, respectively only. The apprenticeship training was for a period of one year duration with no guarantee for job. The apprentices were entitled to holidays for Sunday's and 3 National Holidays only. They were to be put on training at different locations in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioners participated in the selection process and were offered appointment as per Annexure P -3. The contract was also entered into between the petitioners and employer. Conditions No. 7 of the contract reads as under:

(3.) THE Court, on 26.2.2014, in CWP No. 1423 of 2013 had directed the respondent -Board to file supplementary affidavit. The Court had directed the respondent -Board to state what training was imparted to the petitioners as apprentices and in case no training was imparted to them, what duties were extracted from the petitioners as Assistant Engineers/Junior Engineers/Electricians/Linemen. The respondent -Board was also directed to specifically mention whether a report on the performance of the apprentices in the petitioners' respective trade was obtained within three months. The respondent -Board was also directed to file supplementary affidavit whether the petitioners on their successful apprenticeship were given any certificate or not. In sequel thereto, supplementary affidavit was filed on 1.7.2014. According to the supplementary affidavit, advertisements were issued in the three leading newspapers, i.e. The Tribune, Amar Ujala and Dainik Bhasker on 28.5.2011, 2.6.2011 and 27.5.2011, respectively to engage Apprentice Trainees. According to the supplementary affidavit, petitioners engaged as Apprentice Assistant Engineers were imparted practical training in the field of supervision and operation and maintenance including distribution of power supply system and other paper work related to the post of Assistant Engineer (E) by the regular Assistant Engineer and Senior Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer concerned. The petitioners engaged as Apprentice Junior Engineers were imparted practical training in the field of supervision and operation and maintenance including distribution of power supply system and other paper work related to the post of Junior Engineer (E) by the regular Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer concerned. Similarly, petitioners engaged as Apprentice Assistant Electrician/Assistant Linemen were imparted practical training by the Junior Engineers Incharge as well as other superiors in the field of operation and maintenance of electrical lines and transforms and other relied equipments. It is specifically admitted in the supplementary affidavit that the petitioners were not issued any certificate on their successful apprenticeship training of one year nor any report on the performance in their respective trade was obtained. Petitioners were discharged from their training on completion of one year by their respective controlling officers. In case the petitioners were on training, their performance was to be seen as apprentices and they were required to be issued certificate.