M.A.T. No. 2601 of 2004. Case: Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and Ors. Vs A. Vijit Kumar Roy and Ors.. High Court of Calcutta (India)
| Case Number | M.A.T. No. 2601 of 2004 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Joydeep Kar and A.K. Jana, Advs. and For Respondents: Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, Mintu Goswani, K. Bhadra and Upendra Roy, Advs. |
| Judges | Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay and Kalidas Mukherjee, JJ. |
| Issue | Apprentice Act, 1961; Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 - Section 111 |
| Citation | 2008 (3) LLJ 24 |
| Judgement Date | October 05, 2007 |
| Court | High Court of Calcutta (India) |
Judgment:
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.
-
This appeal has been preferred at the instance of the authorities of the Kolkata Port Trust assailing the judgment and order dated 11th June, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition bearing W.P. No. 9259(W) of 2001. By the aforesaid judgment and order under appeal, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents to consider the cases of the writ petitioners in accordance with the decisions, which the said Kolkata Port Trust authorities had taken for giving employment to its trade apprentices in the ratio of 1:1 along with the died-in-harness category candidates. Several other directions were issued by the said learned Single Judge while allowing the aforesaid writ petition. The operative part of the said judgment of the learned Single Judge is set out hereunder:
"...The respondents are hereby directed to consider the cases of the petitioners in accordance with the decisions that the respondent Port Trust had taken for giving employment to its trade apprentices in the ratio 1:1 to be maintained with the candidates from the died-in-harness category. Since the respondent Port Trust has already given employment to the died-in harness category candidates in excess of the quota available to such category, the respondents are hereby directed to take immediate steps for rectifying the situation and restoring the balance in the quotas meant for the two categories. For implementing this order the respondent shall immediately frame a scheme on the basis of such scheme they shall consider the case of the petitioners. The scheme shall be prepared and the names of the petitioners shall be placed in an appropriate panel within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order by them. After preparing the scheme and the panel, the respondent shall consider the cases of the petitioners according to the scheme and panel against the available vacancies, in terms of the Government order issued in the year 1983 and their own decisions as quoted hereinbefore"
-
In the present appeal, following questions have been raised on behalf of the appellants:
(
-
What is the legal right of Trade Apprentices to seek employment with KPT?
-
Whether appointment of Trade Apprentices in the past in relaxation of the Recruitment Rules in the ratio of 1:1 with died-in-harness category gives the Trade Apprentices a right to apply for a writ of mandamus directing KPT to continue with such appointment contrary to the Eecruitment Rules?
-
Whether there was any promise made by the KPT to the Trade Apprentices as to their absorption in the organization and if so whether such promise is enforceable in the eye of law and further whether the writ petitioner can claim any legitimate expectation on the strength of such promise?
-
Whether the guidelines issued by the Central Government dated 21.4.83 and the circular dated 15.10.96 conferred any enforceable legal right on the Trade Apprentices?
-
-
Mr. Joydeep Kar, learned Counsel of the appellants submits that the apprentices are creature of statute namely, the Apprentice Act, 1961 and the said Act since does not confer any legal right on the apprentices to seek employment in the organization where the said apprentices were trained. Mr. Kar further submits that the writ petitioners herein are not entitled to claim any relief against the appellants herein. Mr. Kar referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shiskhuks Berozgar Sangh and Ors. submits that the Trade Apprentices have no right to seek employment in the organization where they were trained. Mr. Kar submits that the trained Apprentices can only claim preference in the event vacancies are filled up by direct recruits and the said trained Apprentices are also not required to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange for coming to the zone of consideration while filling up the vacancies in the establishment in question and the age bar should also be lifted or discontinued.
-
Mr. Kar referred to and...
To continue reading
Request your trial