HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERSversusHARKESH CHAND AND OTHERS

                     [2013] 2 S.C.R. 593


    HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION                           A
               LIMITED AND OTHERS
                          v.
          HARKESH CHAND AND OTHERS
           (Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2013)
                                                                   B
                     JANUARY 07, 2013
   [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

    SeNice Law:
                                                                   c
    Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scale - Entitlement
- Whether period spent in apprenticeship would be counted
towards regular satisfactory seNice - For the purpose of grant
of ACP scale - Held: The period spent in apprenticeship
cannot be counted for grant of ACP Scale, because                  D
apprentices are trainees and not workmen - Apprentices Act,
1961 - ss. 2(aa), 2(aaa) and 18.

     Words and Phrases - 'apprentice' and 'apprenticeship
training' - Meaning of, in the context of Apprentices Act, 1961.
                                                                   E
    Respondents filed writ petition claiming their second
assured Career Progression (ACP) Scale on completion
of 20 years of service. They took the plea that the period
should include the period of training as apprentice. They
asserted that while grant of first ACP on completion of            F
10 years of service, period of apprenticeship was
included. During pendency of the writ petition, the
appellant-department withdrew the first ACP Scale, in
view of clause (4) of Notification dated 14.3.1990. Single
Judge of the High Court held that regular satisfactory             G
service would include the period spent in apprenticeship
and clause (4) of Notification dated 14.3.1990 cannot
override the order dated 27 .2.198 which provided
reckoning of regular satisfactory service. In Writ appeal,
                              593                                  H
    594      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A Division Bench of High Court upheld the order of Single
  Judge. Hence the present appeal.

          Disposing c{ the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. Section 2(aa) of the Apprentices Act, 1961
8 (for short "the 1961 Act") defines "apprentice" which
  means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship
  training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship.
  Section 2(aaa) defines "apprenticeship training" which
  means a course of training in any industry or
C establishment undergone in pursuance of a contract of
  apprenticeship and under prescribed terms and
  conditions which may be different for different categories
  of apprentices. Section 18 clearly states that apprentices
  are trainees and not workers. An apprentice does not
D have a statutory right to claim an appointment and the
  employer is not under any statutory obligation to give him
  employment. However, if the terms of the contract of
  apprenticeship lay down a condition that on successful
  completion of apprenticeship an employer would offer him
E an employment, then it is obligatory on his part to do so.
  In the absence of such a condition, there is no obligation.
  It depends on the terms of the contract. [Paras 20, 21 and
  27] [606-D-F; 609-E-F]

F      2. The respondents in the present case, were
  appointed as apprentices ITI trainee for a period of two
  years. Each of them were paid a fixed salary of Rs.350/-.
  After completion of the training, it was mentioned in the
  letter of appointment that they may be appointed to the post
  of Officiating Technical Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.400/
G 700 on temporary basis. The employer had only stated that
  on successful completion of the training, the apprentice
  may be appointed as Plant AttendantJTechnician Grade-II.
  Thus, it was not a mandatory term incorporated in the
  agreement casting an obligation on the employer to
H appoint him. [Paras 19 and 27) [606-C-D; 609-G]
   HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION                      595
          LIMITED v. HARKESH CHAND
      U. P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh and         A
 Anr. (2004) 8SCC 402: 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 953; Narinder
 Kumar and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1985
 SC 275: 1985 (2) SCR 52; Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v.
 Bhola Singh (2005) 2 SCC 470: 2005 (1) SCR 1123; Mukesh
 K. Tripathi v. Senior Divisional Manager, UC (2004) 8 SCC          B
 387: 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 127 - relied on.

      3. In view of the promotion policy, the ACP Scheme
 and the communications, the High Court has erred in its
 appreciation of the contents of the promotion policy and           C
 the conditions incorporated in the scheme and the
 clarificatory letters issued from time to time and their
 essential purport. The respondents were appointed as
 apprentices ITI trainee on 28.3.1987 and they were not
 given any kind of post. It is only mentioned that they may         D
 be appointed as Plant Attendant Grade-II/Technician
 Grade-II. Thereafter, they were appointed on different
 dates as Officiating Technician Grade-II. The regular pay
 scale was given from the date of appointment. Prior to
 that, it was a fixed pay. They were not working on a post.
 They did not belong to any cadre. In fact, they were not           E
 recruited and, hence, the term trainee which lias been
 referred to in various clarificatory letters has been
 misconstrued by the High Court. [Para 28) [611-C-D; 612-
 A-C]
                                                                    F
       4. The Board had issued clarification that the benefit
   of grant of annual increment under the provisions as
  contained in the letter dated 27.3.1991 was to be given
  to the trainees of all categories whose services had been
  regularized on 29.1.1991 or thereafter, and the                   G
  consequential benefit should accrue only from the date
  on which the regular pay scale has been granted to the
  trainees of all categories. Clause 5 of the ACP Scheme
  which provides for eligibility criteria, in its note stipulated
. that for the purpose of the scheme, regular satisfactory          H
    596 .   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A service would mean continuous service counting
  towards seniority under the Board including the
  continuous service in PSEB before reorganization. It has
  been clearly stated that period spent on ad hoc basis,
  work charged basis, contingent basis and daily wages
B would not be counted for the purpose of counting the
  prescribed length of regular satisfactory service for the
  scheme. The respondents, as is evident, were appointed
  on different dates, i.e., 30.10.1988, 17.10.1988 and
  25.10.1988 respectively as Technicians Grade-II in the pay
c scale on regular basis. Their period of probation was for
  two years. The letter/circular dated 27.3.1991 emphasizes
  the terms from the date of joining in the cadre. [Para 28]
  [610-D-H; 611-A]

      5. However, it is clarified that if any financial benefit
D had been availed by the respondents, the same shall not
  be recovered, but their dates for grant of ACP Scale shall
  remain as determined by the appellants. [Para 29] [612-D]
                        Case Law Reference:
E       2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 953      Relied on         Para 22
        1985 (2) SCR 52              Relied on         Para 25
        2005 (1) SCR 1123            Relied on         Para 26
F       2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 127 Relied on              Para 26
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 100
    of 2013.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 26.7.2010 of the High
G   Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 865 of
    2010 in CWP No. 1383 of 2009.

         Shivendra Dwivedi, Rajesh Mahale, Rokokieno Mor, Krutin
    R. Joshi for the Appellants.
H
   HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION                         597
          LIMITED v. HARKESH CHAND

       R.K. Kapoor, Ranjvijay, Shweta Kapoor, Anis Ahmed Khan           A
 for th Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                                        B
        2. The present appeal by special leave is directed against
  the judgment and order dated 26th July, 2010 passed by the
  High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No.
  865 of 2010 whereby the Division Bench concurred with the
  view expressed by the learned single Judge in CWP No. 1383            C
, of 2009 whereunder the respondents were held entitled for
  grant of Assured Career Progression Scale (for short "the ACP
  Scale") on completion of ten years of service which included
  training as apprentice.
                                                                        D
       3. The facts as have been undraped are that the three
 respondents invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court
 claiming the benefit of the second ACP Scale on completion
 of twenty years of service on the base that their period of training
 as apprentice had to be taken into consideration. Such a claim         E
 was founded on the assertion that they had joined as trainees
 between 17 .4.1987 to 30.4.1987 and were subsequently
 absorbed and brought into the cadre. On completion of ten
 years from the date they entered the service as trainees, the
 first ACP Scale was granted to them. However, when
 conferring of the benefit of the second ACP Scale arose, the           F
 same was not extended to them. The said action of the
 employer compelled them to knock at the doors of the High
 Court and during the pendency of the writ petition, by
 proceeding dated 23.4.2009, the benefits conferred under the
 first ACP Scale was withdrawn referring to a notification issued       G
 on 11.3.1990 which stipulated in clause (4) that the trainees
 referred to therein would be entitled to increment only on
 successful completion of their training and in case of Plant
 Attendant Grade-II and Technician Grade-II, increment on
 successful completion of training would be granted but without         H
    598      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A arrears. Though the writ petition was confined to grant of the
  second ACP Scale, yet the learned single Judge required the
  counsel for both the sides to address about the justifiability of
  withdrawal of the benefit of the first ACP Scale and decided
  both the facets. The said exercise was undertaken by the
B learned single Judge as the primal issue in respect of both the
  ACP Scales rested on the question whether the period spent
  during training could be counted towards regular satisfactory
  service or not.

C         4. It is not in dispute that the respondents were appointed
    as Apprentice ITI Trainees by the erstwhile Haryana State
    Electricity Board (for short "the Board") for a period of two years
    on fixed pay of Rs.350/- per month in 1987. The Board, vide
    Office Order No. 706/Finance dated 27.2.1998, set out the
    eligibility criteria for conferment of benefit of the ACP Scales.
D   There is no dispute that the respondents, who were Technicians
    Grade-II, were not excluded from the application of the same.
    The only question that really emerged for consideration before
    the learned single Judge as well as by the Division Bench was
    the relevant date from which the regular satisfactory service was
E   to be computed for grant of ACP Scales. The learned single
    Judge, after referring to the clause and the communications
    issued by the Board from time to time, came to hold that the
    regular satisfactory service would include the period spent by
    the persons as trainees. As regards the withdrawal of the first
F   ACP Scale, the learned single Judge, referring to the
    notification dated 14.3.1990 and especially to clause (4) which
    dealt with grant of increment and thereafter applying the same
    reasoning, came to hold that clause (4) wou1d have no operation
    to override the Office Order dated 27.2.1998 which provides
G   how the regular satisfactory service could be reckoned and,
    eventually, came to hold that the ACP Scale that had been
    withdrawn during the pendency of the writ petition was
    absolutely erroneous. Being of this view, he quashed the
    withdrawal order and issued a writ of mandamus commanding
H   the respondents therein to grant both the first and second ACP
  HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION                          599
  LIMITED v. HARKESH CHAND [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
Scales reckoning the period of training towards the regular            A
satisfactory service.

      5. In the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench
analysed the anatomy of clause 3(q) dealing with grant of the
second ACP Scale and the eligibility criteria, placed reliance         B
on the memorandum dated 27 .3.1991 circulated to all the
departments to the effect that the period of training of all
employees should be treated as duty for all intents and
purposes, referred to the memo dated 2.1.1992 which stated
that the period of training shall be treated as duty for all intents
and purposes, i.e., seniority, leave, etc. and for experience in       C
service for the purpose of promotion and further relying on the            ,
memorandum dated 20.1.1992 which has laid down that such
period would be counted as experience in service for the
purposes of promotion, concurred with the opinion e)!:pressed
by the learned single Judge and declined to entertain the              D
appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants.

     6. We have heard Mr. Shivendra Dwivedi, learned counsel
for the appellants, and Mr. R.K. Kapoor, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.                                         E

     7. At the very outset, we may note that the respondents
were granted the first ACP Scale on 16.6.1997, 13.1.1999 and
30.6.1998 with effect from 1.5.1997 instead of 1.11.1998 as
on that date, they completed ten years of service. The same
was withdrawn during the pendency of the writ petition where           F
the grievance pertained to non-grant of the second ACP Scale
in terms of the Scheme dated 27.2.1998 introduced by the
Board. It is also apt to note here that the respondents have
already been granted second ACP Scale with effect from
1.11.2008. Thus, the only grievance is that the period shall differ    G
in respect of each respondent if the training period is not
computed.

     8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid narrow controversy, we
think it apposite to scrutinize the various documents brought on       H
    600      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A   record and how they are to be understood, appreciated and
    interpreted regard being had to the contextual meaning of the
    term 'training'.

         9. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as Apprentice ITI
B   Trainee vide letter dated 28.3.1987 by the Board. It was
    stipulated in the said letter that during the period of training, he
    would get a fixed pay of Rs.350/- per month and on successful
    completion of the training, he may be appointed as Plant
    Attendant Grade-II/Technician Grade-II in the scale of Rs.400-
    700 on temporary basis and he would be exclusively posted in
C   the Thermal Organisation. It was also stipulated therein that he
    would enter into an agreement with the Board that he would
    serve the Board for at least five years after successful
    completion of training and in case he would leave the service
    of the Boa~d. he would remit the entire cost incurred by the
D   Board in connection with the training during the period and
    thereafter during the course of his appointment together with
    interest. Similar letter was issued to the other respondents. Vide
    Office Order No. 303/EOM/G-263 dated 6.6.1989, number of
    persons including the respondents were appointed as
E   Officiating Technicians Grade-II in the pay-scale of 950-20-
    1150-ED-25-1500 with effect from the dates mentioned
    against their names. The respondents were appointed on
    regular basis with effect from 30.10.1988, 17.10.1988 and
    25.10.1988 respectively with the stipulation that they would
F   remain on probation for a period of two years.

       10. As the factual narration would exposit, the Board, in
  exercise of power under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply)
  Act, 1948, issued a notification on 14.3.1990 by bringing
  certain amendments in the recruitment and promotion for
G employees working in Thermal Power Projects. The relevant
  part of the amendment reads as follows: -

          "Para 3(i) of Part-A shall be substituted and read as
          follows:
H
   HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION                           601
   LIMITED v. HARKESH CHAND [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

     50% posts shall be filled-up by direct recruitment from             A
     amongst persons having passed 2 years ITI Course with
     Matric as minimum qualification. Such directly recruited
     Plant attendant Gr-II shall remain on training for a period
     of two years in regular pay scale of Plant Attendant Gr-II
     to be allowed by the Board from time to time. The                   B
     Competent Authority may terminate the services of a Plant
     Attendant Gr-II (Trainee) without notice and without
     assigning any reason, if his work and conduct during the
     period of training is not found satisfactory."

     "Para-3 (i) of Part-B shall be substituted and read as              C
     follows:

     50% posts shall be filled-up by direct recruitment from
     amongst persons having passed 2 years ITI Course with
     Middle examination with 2 years experience or ITI one year          D
     course and Middle Examination and with 3 years
     experience on similar works. Such directly recruitment
     Technician Gr-II shall remain on training for a period of two
     years in the regular pay scale to be allowed by the Board
     from time to time. The Competent Authority may terminate            E
     the services of a Technician Gr-II (Trainee) without notice
     and without assigning any reason, if his work and conduct
     during period of training, is not found satisfactory.

           The trainees referred to above shall be entitled to the
     increment only on successful completion of their training.          F
     In case of Plant attendant Gr-II and Technician Gr-II,
     increment on successful completion of training shall be
     granted, but without arrears."

                                                [underlining is ours]    G

      11. We have referred to the substituted clauses in extenso
to appreciate the use of the word 'training' therein after
appointment to a post and the stipulation relating to the grant
of increment. In the context of this notification, the policy relating
                                                                         H
    602       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                               '
                                                      [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A to ACP Scale granted under the ACP Scheme and the
  clarificatory communications are to be understood.

        12. Coming back to the narration, recruitment and
  promotion policy as amended, the F.A. & C.A.O., PTPS, HSE,
B Panipat, vide Memo dated 7.12.1990 sought certain clarification
  in relation to grant of increments. The clarification sought was
  to the following effect: -

          "In this connection it may please be clarified whether the
          period of training in all the cases will count towards
c         increment, leave salary and pension. The above
          clarification may please be issued at the earliest so that
          the cases are dealt with accordingly on account of grant
          of increment and leave salary etc."

D        13. On 27 .3.1991, the Secretary, HSEB, clarified the
    position by stating as follows: -

          "Board vide its notification No. 57, 58, 59, 60/Reg-137,
          dated 14.03.1990 and Notification No. 76/Reg-39/l. dated
          13.09.90 have granted regular pay scales to the trainee(s)
E         of all categories w.e.f. 29.1.1990. In this respect the Field ·•
          Officers have sought for a clarification whether the period
          spent by the trainee on training is to be treated as duty for
          all intents and purposes or not.

F                After considering the pros and cons of the case, .!!
          has been decided that the period spent by the trainee(s)
          of all categories on training shall be treated as duty for all
          intents and purposes i.e. grant of increment in accordance
          with the provisions as contained in the Policy, leave and
G         seniority i.e. from the date of joining in this cadre."

                                                  [emphasis supplied].

     14. In continuation of the aforesaid clarificatory
  memorandum dated 27.3.1991, the Board issued another
H memorandum on 22.11.1991. The said clarification related to
   HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION                        603
   LIMITED v. HARKESH CHAND [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
 grant of regular pay scale to the trainees of all categories and      A   ·
 in that letter, it has been stated as follows: -

      "In this connection, it is stated that some field offices have
      sought for a clarification as to whether the benefit for the
      grant of annual increment under the prqvisions as contained      B
      in letter dated 27.3.91 is to be given to all trainee(s), who
      were appointed during the year, 1987, 1988 & 1989 etc."

      15. After referring to the issue which required clarification,
 the Board clarified that it has decided that monetary benefits
 of regular pay scale had to be granted to the trainee(s) of all C
 categories with effect from 29.1.1990 but the benefit of grant
 of annual increment under the provisions as contained in letter
 dated 27.3.1991 has to be given to the trainee(s) of all
 categories whose services have been regularized on 29.1.1991
 or thereafter. It had been further stated that the consequential D
 benefits would accrue only from the date on which the regular
 pay scale has been granted to the trainees of all categories.

        16. As the facts have been further uncurtained, on
   27.1.1998, the Board introduced the Assured Career
'· Progression Scheme (for short "the ACP Scheme") with the E
   objective to provide such Board employees who fall within the
   scope of the Scheme at least two financial upgradations
   including the financial upgradation, if any, availed by such Board
   employees as a consequence of the functional promotion.
   Clause 2 excludes certain categories of employees, namely, F
   appointed on ad hoc basis, work charged basis, part time paid
   out of contingencies and a daily wager from getting the benefit
   of the Scheme. Clause 3 deals with the definitions. It defines
   in Clause 3(b) "direct recruit fresh entrant". The same, being
   relevant, is reproduced below: -                                   G

      "(b) "Direct Recruited Fresh Entrant" with reference to a
      post or a Board Employee means the post on which such
      Board employee was recruited as a regular and direct
                                                                       H
    604      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A         recruitee in the Board service and is in continuous
          employment of Board since such recruitment;"

         17. Clause 5 deals with the eligibility for grant of ACP
    Scales. That being the thrust of the controversy the relevant part
B   of the said clause is reproduced below: -

           "5.   Eligibility for Grant of ACP Scales:

           (1)   Every Board employee who. after a regular
                 satisfactory service for a minimum period of 1O
c                years. has not got any financial upgradation in terms
                 of grant of a pay scale higher than the functional pay
                 scale prescribed for the post as on 31.12.1995. on
                 which he was recruited as direct recruited fresh
                 entrant: -
D                (a)   either as a consequence of his functional
                       promotion in the hierarchy, or

                 (b)   as a consequence of the revision of pay
                       scale for the same post, or
E
                 (c)   as a consequence of any other event through
                       which the functional pay scale of the post has
                       been upgraded, with respect to the functional
                       pay scale prescribed for the post as on
                       31.12.1995, shall for the purposes of drawal
F
                       of pay; be eligible for placement into the First
                       ACP scale with reference to him.

           (2)   Every Board employee who, after a regular
                 satisfactory service for a minimum period of 20
G                years, has not got more than one financial
                 upgradation in terms of grant of pay scale higher
                 than the functional pay scale prescribed for the post
                 as on 31.12.1995 on which he was recruited as a
                 direct recruited fresh entrant: -
H
                                                       \.
  HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION                       605
  LIMITED v. HARKESH CHAND [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
            {a)   either as a consequence of his functional          A
                  promotion in the hierarchy, or

            {b)   as a consequence of the revision of pay
                  scale for the same post, or

            {c)   as a consequences of any other event B
                  through which the functional pay scale of the
                  post has been upgraded, with respect to the
                  functional pay scale prescribed for the post
                  as on 31.12.1995, shall for the purposes of
                  drawal of pay; be eligible for placement into C
                  the First ACP scale with reference to him.

    Provided that grant of ACP scale shall also be considered
    financial upgradation for the purpose of this para.

    NOTE : For the purposes of this scheme regular D
     satisfactory service would mean continuous service
     counting towards seniority under H.S.E.B. including
     continuous service in P.S.E.B. before reorganization.
     commencing from the date on which the board employee
     joined his service after being recruited through the            E
     prescribed procedure or rules regulations etc. for regular
     recruitment. in the cadre in which he is working at the time
     of being considered his eligibility for grant of ACP scales
     under this scheme and further fulfilling all the recruitments
    •prescribed for determining the suitability of grant of ACP      F
     scales. The p_eriod spent on ad hoc basis; work charged
     basis; contingent basis and daily wages will not be counted
     for the purpose of counting of prescribed length of "Regular
     Satisfactory Service" for this scheme."
                                                                     G
                                            [emphasis supplied]

    18 .. In this backdrop, it is to be seen whether the period
spent in apprenticeship would be counted towards regular
satisfactory service. The learned single Judge as well as the
                                                                     H
    606        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A   Division Bench has returned a finding in favour of the
    respondents solely on the basis of the clarificatory letters and.
    communications. Before we advert to the quintessential tenor
    of the said communications, it is necessitous to understand the
    nature of appointment, the concept of an apprentice, his rights
B   under the law and the basic ingredients of regular satisfactory
    service.

         19. As has been stated earlier, the respondents were
    appointed as apprentices ITI trainee for a period of two years.
    Each of them were paid a fixed salary of Rs.350/-. After
c   completion of the training, it was mentioned in the letter of
    appointment that they may be appointed to the post of
    Officiating Technical Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.400/700
    on temporary basis.

D        20. Section 2(aa) of the Apprentices Act, 1961 (for short
    "the 1961 Act") defines "apprentice" which means a person who
    is undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract
    of apprenticeship.

E        21. Section 2(aaa) defines "apprenticeship training" which
    means a course of training in any industry or establishment
    undergone in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship and
    under prescribed terms and conditions which may be different
    for different categories of apprentices. Section 18 clearly states
    that apprentices are trainees and not workers.
F
         22. In U.P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh
    and Another\ A.K. Mathur, J., speaking for Hegde, J. and
    himself, while dealing with the status of apprentice, has stated
    thus: -
G
          "Therefore a combined reading of the sections as well as
          Rules makes it clear that apprentices are only persons
          undergoing training and during that training they are entitled
          to get a particular stipend, they have to work for fixed hours
H   1.   (2004) a sec 402.
  HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION                       607
  LIMITED v. HARKESH CHAND [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
     and at the end of period of training they have to appear in A
     the test and a certificate is issued to them. There is no
     obligation on the part of the employer to give them any
     employment whatsoever. The position of the apprentice
     remains as an apprentice trainee and during the period
     of training they will not be treated as workmen. Only B
     obligation on the part of the employer is to impart them
     training as per provisions of the Act and Rules and to pay
     them stipend as required under Rule 11 and beyond that
     there is no obligation on the part of the employer to accept
     them as his employees and give them the status of c
     workmen. There is no relation of master and servant or
     employer and employee."

     23. Be it noted, in the said case, in paragraph 51, it has
been laid down that the 1961 Act is a complete code in itself
and it lays down the conditions of the apprentices, their tenure,    D
their terms and conditions and their obligations and what are
the obligations of the employer. It also lays down that the
apprentices are trainees and not workmen and if any dispute
arises, then the settlement has to be made by the
Apprenticeship Advisor as per Section 20 of the Apprentices          E
Act, 1961 and his decision thereof is final. The nature and
character of the apprentice is nothing but that of a trainee and
he is supposed to enter into a contract and by virtue of that
contract, he is to serve for a fixed period on a fixed stipend and
that does not change the character of the apprentice to that of      F
a workman under the employer where he is undergoing the
apprenticeship training. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 only lays
down that such contract should be registered with the
Apprenticeship Adviser, but by non-registration of the contract,
the position of the apprentice is not changed to that of a           G
workman. From the scheme of the Act, the apprentice is
recruited for the purpose of training as defined in Section 2(aa)
of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and from the language employed
in Sections 6 and 7, it is more than clear that the nature and
character of the apprentice is that of a trainee only and on the     H
    608       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A   expiry of the training, there is no corresponding obligation on
    the part of the employer to employ him.

         24. Thereafter, the majority, referring to Section 22 of the
    Act, opined as follows: -
B         "Section 22 makes it abundantly clear that at the end of
          the apprenticeship training, it is not obligatory on the part
          of the employer to offer an employment to an apprentice ·
          who has completed the period of apprenticeship. It is only
          if the terms of the contract of the apprenticeship lay down
c         a condition that on successful completion of an
          apprenticeship training, an employer will offer him an
          employment then it is obligatory on the part of the employer
          to do so. If there is no such condition stipulated in the
          apprenticeship contract then the employer cannot be
D         compelled to offer employment to such apprentice. At the
          same time, it is not obligatory on the part of the apprentice
          to serve that employer if there is no such stipulation to this
          effect. So it is a mutual thing and it depends on the terms
          of contract. The survey of all these provisions of the Acts
E         and the Rules as mentioned above, makes it clear that the
          character and status of apprentice remains the same and
          he does not become workman and labour laws are not
          attracted."

          S.B. Sinha, J., in his concurring opinion, has stated thus: -
F
          "Moreover in terms of Section 22 of the Act, the employer
          has no statutory liability to give employment to an
          apprentice."

G         25. In Narinder Kumar and Others v. The State of Punjab
    and Others 2, a two-Judge Bench dwelt upon the letter of
    appointment of apprentices and came to hold that the employer ·
    was bound to appoint the apprentices in the available vacancies
    because of Section 22(2) of the 1961 Act and the contractual
H   2.   AIR 1985 SC 275.
     HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION                     609
     LIMITED v. HARKESH CHAND [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
obligations arising out of para 2 of the letter of appointment        A
which stated that the apprentices shall be absorbed in the
department if there are vacancies. Be it noted, emphasis was
laid on the nature of the contract.

     26. In Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Bhola Singh 3, while          B
dealing with an award passed by the Labour Court under the
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act relating to apprentices, a two-Judge
Bench opined thus: -

       "14. If the respondent was appointed in terms of the
       Apprentices Act, 1961, he will not be a workman, as has C
       been held by this Court in Mukesh K. Tripathi v. Senior
       Divisional Manager, LIC4 and U.P. SEB v. Shiv Mohan
       Singh (supra).

       15. In terms of the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961,   D
       a trainee or an apprentice has no right to be absorbed in
       services."

      27. We have referred to the aforesaid pronouncements
 solely for the purpose that an apprentice does not have a
 statutory right to claim an appointment and the employer is not E
 under any statutory obligation to give him employment.
 However, if the terms of the contract of apprenticeship lay down
 a condition that on successful completion of apprenticeship an
employer would offer him an employment, then it is obligatory
on his part to do so. In the absence of such a condition, there F
is no obligation. It depends on the terms of the contract. In the
case at hand, as the letter of appointment would show, the
employer had only stated that on successful completion of the
training, the apprentice may be appointed as Plant Attendant/
Technician Grade-II. Thus, it was not a mandatory term G
incorporated in the agreement casting an obligation on the
employer to appoint him.

3.    (2005) 2 sec 470.
4.    r2004l a sec 387                                                H
    610      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A         28. Having dealt with the rights of an apprentice, we may
    presently proceed to dwell upon the issue whether any of the
    clarificatory letters/circulars conferred any benefit on these
    employees so that they could be treated to be in regular
    service. On a perusal of the notification issued by the Board, it
B    is clear as crystal that it relates to two categories of direct
     recruits who shall undergo training for a period of two years in
    the regular pay scale. Thus, the said notification has no
    application to apprentices who avail the training. In the
    clarification issued on 27.3.1991, there is a mention with regard
c   to the regular pay scale in the notification dated 13.9.1990. The
    query was limited to the issue whether the training period of
    such a trainee would be counted for all intents and purposes
    or not. In that context, it was clarified that the period spent by
    the apprentice of all categories shall be treated as duty for all
    intents and purposes, i.e., for grant of increment in accordance
0
    with the provisions as contained in the policy, leave and
    seniority, i.e., from the date of joining in this cadre. It is worth
    noting that the Board had issued further clarification that the
    beriefit of grant of annual increment under the provisions as
    contained in the letter dated 27.3.1991 was to be given to the
E   trainees of all categories whose services had been regularized
    on 29.1.1991 or thereafter, and the consequential benefit
    should accrue only from the date on which the regular pay scale
    has been granted to the trainees of all categories. Clause 5 of
    the ACP Scheme which provides for eligibility criteria, in its
F   note stipulates that for the purpose of the scheme, regular
    satisfactory service would mean continuous service counting
    towards seniority under the Board including the continuous
    service in PSEB before reorganization. It has been clearly
    stated that period spent on ad hoc basis, work charged basis,
G   contingent basis and daily wages would not be counted for the
    purpose of counting the prescribed length of regular satisfactory
    service for the scheme. The respondents, as is evident, were
    appointed on different dates, i.e., 30.10.1988, 17.10.1988 and
    25.10.1988 respectively as Technicians Grade-II in the pay
H   scale on regular basis. Their period of probation was for two
  HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION                        611
  LIMITED v. HARKESH CHAND [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

years. The letter/circular dated 27.3.1991 emphasizes the            A
terms from the date of joining in the cadre. As is perceptible
from the clarificatory letter dated 27.3.1991, the trainees of all
categories have been granted regular pay scale from 21.1.1990
and decision had been taken that the training period or period
spent as trainees· of all categories shall be treated as duty for    B
all intents and purposes. On 20th of January, 1992, it was further
clarified that the period spent by the trainees of all categories
on training would be counted as experience in service for the
purposes of promotion. On a scrutiny of the promotion policy,
the ACP Scheme and the communications, we find that the              c
High Court has erred in its appreciation of the contents of the
promotion policy and the conditions incorporated in the scheme
 and the clarificatory letters issued from time to time and their
 essential purport. The Board, on 14.3.1990, substituted and
 added certain clauses to the recruitment and promotion policy.      D
We have reproduced the same earlier and on a proper
 scrutiny, it is perceivable that 50% posts are to be filled by
 direct recruitment from amongst persons who have passed 2
 years ITI course with Matric as minimum qualification and such
 directly recruited Plant Attendants Grade-II would remain on        E
 training for a period of two years on the regular pay scale of
 Plant Attendant Grade-II to be allowed by the Board from time
to time, and the other 50% is be filled up by direct recruitment
from amongst persons who have passed two years ITI course
with middle examination with two years experience or ITI one
year course with middle examination and with three years             F
experience of similar works. Such directly recruited Technician
Grade-II shall remain on training for a period of two years in
the regular pay scale. The clarificatory letter has to be read in
the said context and we are disposed to think so as the persons
appointed under the policy in the regular pay scale are required     G
to go on training. The clarification sought related to grant of
increment and computation of period that is spent as trainee
in the capacity of Plant Attendant Grade-II and in that context,
the clarification issued was that the training of all categories
on training would be counted. It is worthy to note that the          H
    612     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 2 S.C.R.


A respondents were not recruited under the said policy. They were
  appointed as apprentices ITI trainee on 28.3.1987 and they
  were not given any kind of post. It is only mentioned that they
  may be appointed as Plant Attendant Grade-II/Technician
  Grade-II. Thereafter, they were appointed on different dates as
B Officiating Technician Grade-II. The regular pay scale was given
  from the date of appointment. Prior to that, it was a fixed pay.
  They were not working on a post. They did not belong to any
  cadre. In fact, they were not recruited and, hence, the term
  trainee which has been referred to in various clarificatory letters
c has been misconstrued by the High Court.
        29. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we conclude and hold
  that the judgments rendered by the learned single Judge as well
  as by the Division Bench are unsustainable and are, .
  accordingly, set aside. However, we clarify that if any financial
D benefit had been availed by the respondents, the same shall
  not be recovered, but their dates for grant of ACP Scale shall
  remain as determined by the appellants. Accordingly, the
  appeal is disposed of. The parties shall bear their respective
  costs.
E
  K.K.T.                                      Appeal disposed of.