Delhi High Court rejects plea of 97 persons seeking regular employment on completion of apprenticeship

The Delhi High Court on Friday held that in the absence of a binding obligation on the employer to absorb apprentices as regular employees, the latter cannot claim a right to be absorbed in the company on completion of apprenticeship [Shiwang Tripathi & Ors v. Union of India & Ors]..Justice Rekha Palli was hearing a plea by 97 petitioners who were employed by a general insurance company, National Insurance Company Limited, as accounts apprentices but sought their absorption as administrative officers (scale I) on completion of their apprenticeship contract..“The petitioners were admittedly taken in as apprentices, and merely because their apprenticeship was extended in accordance with the advertisement, they cannot claim that they are akin to regular employees, or that the period of apprenticeship should be treated as a probation period," the judgment held..All 97 petitioners had been appointed after being selected in terms of an advertisement issued on November 1, 2018. In their plea, a direction was sought to the company to regularise their services as administrative officers (scale I) with all service and consequential benefits, including seniority..Petitioners' grounds.- Performance during their apprenticeship training at the respondent company was duly appreciated by their superior officers from time to time;- Apprenticeship period was first extended till December 31, 2021 and then extended again till June 30, 2022;- Despite representations to the respondents seeking their absorption, no steps were taken to regularise their services;.- They were assured that in case there were vacancies for the post concerned, they would be considered for absorption, subject to their performance being satisfactory, and only on this stipulation contained in the advertisement, the petitioners left their erstwhile services to join the respondent company;- Chairman-cum-managing director wrote to Ministry of Finance seeking relaxation on the bar imposed on fresh recruitment, including petitioners;- Actuarial apprentices were appointed in 2018 following an advertisement in 2017 have been absorbed as scale I officers by the respondent company as recently as on April 8, 2022. Therefore, it can’t be claimed that on account of any alleged restructuring, they cannot absorb the existing accounts apprentices..Respondents' case.- Petitioners were clearly informed that there was no obligation on the respondent company to absorb them and they cannot claim that they must be absorbed even if the respondent company has neither any requirement of such officers;- Neither the appointment letter, nor the surety bond furnished by the petitioners, indicated any reciprocal obligations on the petitioners to serve the respondent company after the completion of their period of apprenticeship;- Section 22 (1) of the Apprentices Act, 1961, envisages a discretion to the employer to formulate its own policy for recruitment of any apprentice, who has completed the period of apprenticeship in its establishment;.- Petitioners exercised their own discretion in continuing with their apprenticeship training instead of looking for alternate career opportunities although it was suggested by way of a communication on February 4, 2022—granting the second and last extension to the petitioners;- Merely because the Chairman wrote to the Ministry of Finance to relax the bar on fresh recruitment, it cannot create any estoppel against the respondents from taking a decision not to fill the post at all;- The comparison with actuarial apprentices was misplaced as not only do the accounts apprentices and actuarial apprentices fall in different categories, even otherwise, unlike the availability of qualified accounts personnel, there is an acute shortage of qualified actuarial personnel..High Court's findings.It was observed that the petitioners had relied on Section 22(2) of the Act to claim entitlement on absorption as scale I officers, especially as they were given an impression at their time of the appointment in June 2019, that they would be so absorbed, subject to the availability of vacancies and their performance being up to the mark.Section 22 (1) of the Act was noted to provide the employer the freedom to formulate its policy for recruitment of apprentices and therefore, there was generally no obligation on an employer to absorb the apprentices.However, Section 22(2) of the Act made an exception and dealt with a situation where the apprenticeship contract incorporated a condition making it mandatory for the apprentices to serve the employer after the successful completion of the training and there being an obligation on the employer to offer suitable employment to the apprentices on completion of the apprenticeship period.Whether there was any such condition in the contract between the parties, which would fall within the ambit of Section 22(2) of the Act, was the moot question before the Court..To arrive at its conclusion, the High Court referred to the clauses in the apprentices’ service conditions and appointment letters.The Court, consequently, noted,“I am unable to find any clause either containing any assurance to the petitioners that all the apprentices would be necessarily absorbed as scale I officers upon completion of their apprenticeship, or any obligation on the apprentices to serve the respondent after completion of the apprenticeship as envisaged under Section 22(2) of the Act.”Even one of the clauses in the service conditions stated that it was not obligatory on the part of the respondent company to offer any employment to any apprentice after completion of their apprenticeship..The Court was not convinced with the contention that only because at one point the respondent company had thought it would be beneficial to absorb these apprentices, it could be construed as any estoppel against them from taking a plea that they do not deem it appropriate to absorb the apprenticesThough the plea on actuarial apprentices was stated to be “attractive at the first blush”, the Court rejected it for two reasons - an acute shortage of trained actuarial personnel when compared to accounts personnel and there being no bar to prevent an employer from absorbing any category of apprentices as it deemed fit..“Even though petitioners may indeed have an impeccable service record, as is reflected in the positive reviews given by their superior officers in their performance reports, once the respondents have taken a categorical decision neither to absorb the accounts apprentices, nor to fill up these posts of administrative officers (scale I) through direct recruitment anytime in the near future, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioners,” it held..Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha and advocates Govind Jee and Parul Dhurve for petitioners.Senior Advocate Sudhanshu Batra along with Advocates Zorawar Singh, Vivek Kishore, Anju Gupta and Roshan Lal for respondents..[Read Judgment]