Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, a group of individuals who were engaged as apprentice development officers by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) under a training scheme, filed writ petitions seeking a mandamus to direct LIC to absorb them as permanent employees and a certiorari to strike down a clause in their engagement letters that stated the training did not confer any right to employment. The petitions were based on the contention that they had completed the training and were performing duties similar to regular development officers, thus entitling them to permanency. The court examined the nature of the apprenticeship scheme under Section 18 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, and the terms of the engagement letters. It noted that the scheme was purely for training and did not create an employer-employee relationship. The court also observed that the petitioners had accepted the terms of engagement without protest. The court held that writ petitions are not maintainable for such contractual disputes, as they involve disputed questions of fact. The proper remedy would be before a civil court or industrial tribunal. Consequently, the court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the validity of the engagement clause and denying any right to absorption.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Apprenticeship - Employer-Employee Relationship - Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, Section 18 - Apprentices Act, 1961 - The court considered whether apprentice development officers engaged under a training scheme are employees entitled to permanency. Held that the apprenticeship scheme under Section 18 of the LIC Act does not create an employer-employee relationship; the trainees are not employees and have no right to absorption. The engagement letters clearly stated that the training does not confer any right to employment. (Paras 1-20) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Contractual Disputes - The court held that writ petitions seeking enforcement of contractual terms of engagement are not maintainable as they involve disputed questions of fact and are essentially contractual in nature. The remedy lies before civil courts or industrial tribunals. (Paras 21-30) C) Service Law - Absorption - Right to Employment - The court held that there is no legal right to absorption after completion of apprenticeship training unless the scheme or contract provides otherwise. The petitioners cannot claim permanency merely because they underwent training. (Paras 31-40)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who were engaged as apprentice development officers under a training scheme, are entitled to be absorbed as permanent employees of LIC and whether the engagement letters' clause disclaiming any right to employment is valid.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The court held that the apprenticeship training does not create an employer-employee relationship and the petitioners have no right to absorption. The writ petitions are not maintainable for contractual disputes.
Law Points
- Apprenticeship training does not create employer-employee relationship
- No right to absorption after completion of training
- Writ petition not maintainable for contractual disputes
- LIC Act Section 18
- Apprentices Act 1961
