1988 PLP 472 (PLC(CS))

Laws Cited

Representation

• Mahmood A. Ghani for Appellant.
• Bashir Awan for Respondent.
• Date of hearing: 4th October, 1987.
• 5. I have heard, Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned Advocate for, the appellant establishment and Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents and have also carefully perused the impugned order and other relevant records of the cases. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned Advocate for the appellant establishment has invited my attention to the provisions of Rule 23 of the Apprenticeship Rules, 1966, under which it is not obligatory on, the part of the employer to offer employment to the Apprentices on completion of the apprenticeship training and also it is not obligatory on the part of the apprentices to serve the employer after completion of their training period. He has also pointed out that in the present original contract of apprenticeship to which both the parties had agreed that the management did not have any responsibility to absorb the apprentice after completion of his apprenticeship training He, therefore, argued that the presumption raised by the learned Labour Court that the management should be deemed to have absorbed these apprentices in permanent employment from 1‑1‑1986 was not based on a correct appreciation of law or the contract of the apprenticeship. Mr. Mahmood, A. Ghani, the learned Advocate further contended that although the original period of apprenticeship training was to expire on 31‑12‑1985, yet in terms of Rule 19(3) of the Apprenticeship Rules 1966, it was open for the competent authority to grant extension in the duration of the training which in any case could not exceed a period more than 9 months, therefore, it was open for the competent authority to grant extension in the duration of the apprenticeship training to all these respondents upto 30‑9‑1986. Rule 19(3) of the Apprenticeship Rules 1966 nowhere provides that such an extension should only be held if it is communicated by the competent authority or that the grant of extension should be before the expiry of the original period of extension and it merely provides that extension in the apprenticeship period in individual case if considered essential in the interest of apprenticeship training shall be made "with the approval of the competent authority and it shall in no case be for more than the of the original duration of the apprenticeship. He, therefore, argues that if the approval is given by the competent authority then it shall be deemed to be legal and valid even if such approval granted by the competent authority is communicated to the employer by any other person. The essential prerequisite of Regulation 19(3) of the Apprenticeship Rules 1966 is the approval of the competent Authority which if communicated by any other official of the Directorate, shall be deemed to be in substantial compliance to the provisions of law. Mr. Ghani, then, referred to me the statement of Syed Basharat Hussain, one of the respondents, in his cross‑examination before the learned Labour Court who claimed that he was being paid salary and not stipend. However, Exbt.A/1 which has been filed by the respondent himself before the learned Labour Court specifically provides in Clause (2) that the apprentice will be paid stepend during his apprenticeship training of 3 years and vide clause (8) of the said Exbt. it further provides that in all other respects, the apprentice will be covered by the proper rules and regulations of the Apprenticeship Scheme and the Corporation, enforced from time to time. Moreover, Clause (10) of the said exhibit, provides that the company reserves the right to terminate this appreticeship at any time without assigning any reasons and finally all the terms and conditions were acceptable to the apprentice who had acknowledged the same by signing the copy of the contract. The respondents have failed to produce any appointment letter on the record of the learned Labour Court to prove that they were permanent employees of the appellant establishment. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani further pleaded that Clause (3) of the said Exbt. A/1 on the record, specifically provides that the management did not take any responsibility to absorb the apprentices after completion of the apprenticeship training. There is an admission by the respondent, namely, Basharat Hussain that he was not allotted any residential accommodation by the management and that he was being provided with medical facilities and no cash allowance was being paid to him. Finally, it was submitted by Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned Advocate for the a establishment that the entire scheme of the Apprenticeship Ordinance, 1962, provide for promotion, development and regulating in a systematic way an apprenticeship programme in the industries for securing certain minimum standard of skill and the very spirit of this Ordinance will be defeated if these apprentices who are no more than students receiving training and stipend, claim permanent employment on completion of their training period. He pointed out that the Legislature was conscious that efforts would be made by such apprentices to claim permanent employment on completion of their apprenticeship period, therefore, it was obvious for this reason that Regulation 23 was incorporated in the Apprenticeship Rules, 1966 which provides that it shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer employment to an apprentice on completion of his apprenticeship nor does it make it obligatory on the part of the apprentice .to serve the employer after completion of his apprenticeship, and so, these are mutual and reciprocal rights and obligations they have to be enforced, specially and all the more when the contract of apprenticeship already provides that no such obligation of permanent employment should flow following completion of the apprenticeship training. The spirit of the Ordinance will be frustrated if students acquiring apprenticeship training claim employment after completion of their programme as a matter of right. It is of course open for the employer, within his discretion to employ any of the apprentices if the employer comes to the conclusion that any apprentice has acquired skill and can be beneficial to his organization. Appendix which is an apprenticeship contract to the Apprenticeship Rules, 1966 is based on Regulation 18 of the Apprenticeship Rules, 1966. This contract is thus a statutory contract and it also provides that the employer is not obliged to offer employment to an apprentice after completion of his apprenticeship.
• 6. On the other hand, Mr. Bashir Awan the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents has argued that since the original contract of apprenticeship was for a period of 3 years and was to expire on 31‑12‑1985, therefore, unless and until the grant of the extension was available before 31‑12‑1985, it shall be deemed that the apprentices were absorbed as permanent employees of the company as from 1‑1‑1986 on the basis of custom, usage and practice. In support of his arguments, Mr. Bashir Awan has referred me to a case reported in PLJ 1979 (Lahore) at page 214. The contentions of Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate for the respondents have no substance. The authorities relied upon by him are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present cases.
• 7. In view of the above legal position, facts and `circumstances discussed by me, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court could not be sustained and is liable to C be set aside. I find much force in the arguments advanced by Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned Advocate for the appellant establishment.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree