Mr. Ashish Pradhan, Mr. Srikant Prasad, Mr. Aman Mehrotra and Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocates v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Judgment

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, 118 in number, seek a direction to respondent No. 4 – Central Bank of India [“the Bank”] to give preference to the petitioners for appointment to the post of Clerk, on the ground that they are trained apprentices, and to provide reservation for trained apprentices for the said Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:24.11.2025 19:06:49 W.P.(C) 11819/2024 Page 1 of 9 post. Although the writ petition also contains a prayer for absorption of the petitioners into the services of the Bank upon completion of their apprenticeship, this relief was not pressed at the time of hearing.

2. The petitioners were all apprentices in the Bank during the period from June 2023 to July 2024. They were appointed pursuant to a notification issued by the Bank in March 2023 for engagement of apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961 [“the Act”], in accordance with the Bank’s apprenticeship policy. The notification provided, inter alia, as follows: “• It shall neither be obligatory on the part of the Bank to offer any employment to any apprentice who has completed the period of his apprenticeship training nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to accept an employment. • The apprentice shall have no right to claim employment in Bank after completion of the training. • Bank does not have any obligation to offer regular employment to apprentice during or after completion of apprenticeship period.”

3. The petitioners were appointed under similar engagement letters. A copy of the engagement letter dated 04.09.2023, issued to the petitioner No.1, has been placed on record, which refers to a contract to be signed by the apprentice.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Bank, by an advertisement dated 01.07.2024, invited applications for the post of Clerk, but made no provision for any preference or reservation to be

given to trained apprentices. Mr. Ashish Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Bank has not formulated a policy relating to preference or reservation for apprentices, as required by Section 22 of the Act. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:24.11.2025 19:06:49 W.P.(C) 11819/2024 Page 2 of 9

5. Section 22 of the Act provides as follows: “22. Offer and acceptance of employment.—[(1) Every employer shall formulate its own policy for recruiting any apprentice who has completed the period of apprenticeship training in his establishment.] (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (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.”1

6. Section 22(1) was amended in 2014. As most of the decisions cited by learned counsel for the parties consider Section 22(1), as it stood prior to the amendment, the pre-amendment provision is reproduced below: “(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 employment under the employer.” The remainder of the Section remains unchanged.

7. Mr. Pradhan relied heavily upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. SRTC v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh2. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court accepted the stand of the appellant, that the High Court ought not to have directed employment of apprentices, with the following observations: 1 Emphasis supplied. 2 (1995) 2 SCC 1 [hereinafter, “U.P.SRTC”]. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:24.11.2025 19:06:49 W.P.(C) 11819/2024 Page 3 of 9 “7. The aforesaid provisions are sufficiently indicative of the fact that the training imparted is desired to be result-oriented; and the trainees are treated akin to employees. Even so, Section 22 of the Act states, and it is this provision which has been pressed into service by the appellants, 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 in his establishment unless there be a condition in the contract to the contrary. The model contract form finding place in Schedule VI of the Rules echoes the voice of Section 22(1) in its second para. The Corporation has placed on record a model contract form entered into between it and the trainees which also states about the aforesaid non-obligation.

8. On the strength of these provisions, the contention advanced is that the High Court could not have directed to give employment to the trainees. Reference to the impugned judgment, however, shows that while giving the direction the Court was conscious of what has been provided in Section 22 of the Act; even so, the direction was given on the basis principally of the doctrine of promissory estoppel as already noted. As to this view taken by the High Court, we state that, according to us, the direction in question could not have been given because of this principle, despite what was given out by the Joint General Manager of the Corporation in his circular letter dated (sic) 1977 referred in the judgment.”

8. However, keeping in mind the time, money, and energy spent on trainees, the Supreme Court gave the following additional directions, which have been relied upon by Mr. Pradhan: “12. In the background of what has been noted above, we state that the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful completion of their training: (1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits. (2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India v. N. Hargopal3 would permit this. 3 (1987) 3 SCC 308. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:24.11.2025 19:06:49 W.P.(C) 11819/2024 Page 4 of 9 (3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same would be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any, in the service rule concerned. If the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training would be given. (4) The training institute concerned would maintain a list of the persons trained yearwise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to those who are senior.

13. Insofar as the cases at hand are concerned, we find that the Corporation filed an additional affidavit in CA Nos. 4347-4354 of 1990 (as desired by the Court) on 20-10-1992 giving position regarding vacancies in the posts of conductors and clerks. If such posts be still vacant, we direct the Corporation to act in accordance with what has been stated above regarding the entitlement of the trainees. We make it clear that while considering the cases of the trainees for giving employment in suitable posts, what has been laid down in the Service Regulations of the Corporation shall be followed, except that the trainees would not be required to appear in any written examination, if any provided by the Regulations. It is apparent that before considering the cases of the trainees, the requirement of their names being sponsored by the employment exchange would not be insisted upon. Insofar as the age requirement is concerned, the same shall be relaxed as indicated above.”4

9. Mr. Krishan Kumar, learned counsel for the Bank, however, submitted that Section 22(1) of the Act, in the form that it now stands, after the amendment of 2014, only requires formulation of a policy for recruitment of apprentices. He submitted that the Bank has indeed formulated an Apprenticeship Policy dated 01.11.2021, which specifically deals with the question of employment as follows: “(xii) Weightage for Employment Bank As per Recruitment policy of the Bank 5” 4 Emphasis supplied. 5 Emphasis supplied. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:24.11.2025 19:06:49 W.P.(C) 11819/2024 Page 5 of 9

10. Mr. Kumar also relied upon Schedule 5 to the Apprenticeship Rules, 1992, which provides for a model contract of apprenticeship. The contract specifically mentions as follows: “II. Obligations of Trade Apprentice (both in case of Major and Minor Trade Apprentices) (Under Section 12 of Apprentices Act, 1961). xxxx xxxx xxxx [(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: Provided that if there is any recruitment, employer shall formulate its own policy for recruiting any apprentice who has completed the period of apprenticeship training in his establishment in terms of sub- section (1) of Section 22 of the Act.]6

11. In support of his contentions, Mr. Kumar relied upon the judgments in Chairman/MD, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. And Others v. Sadashib Behera and Others7, Narender Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.8, The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation & Anr. v. TELCO & Anr.9, U.P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh10, and Shiwang Tripathi and Others v. Union of India and Others11.

12. Mr. Premtosh K. Mishra, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, who appeared for the Union of India, supported the stand of the Bank.

13. As noticed above, most of the judgments cited, including U.P.SRTC deal with the pre-2014 version of Section 22(1). Interpreting the said provision, in Mahanadi Coalfields, the Court held that the Act