IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHAT’I‘I’SGARH AT BILASPUR M‘C.C.No.v #b’ /2005 APPLICANTS - 1. Chairman,\Coal India Ltd., 10, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata (W.B.) 2. Director (P & IR), Coal India Ltd., 10, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata (W.B.) 3. Member Secretary, JBCCI—VI; (Joint Bipartite committee for the Coal industry), Coal India Limited, 10, Respondents ~6 X3 8/ I ‘ I 4.‘ Netaji Chairman—cum-Managing Subhas Road, Ko1kata Director, (w.B.) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Director (Personnel), South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. Chief General Manager, Hasdeo Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, P.O. Hasdeo, District — Korea (C.G.), '7. Chief General Manager, Chirmiri Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Po. Chirimiri, Distt. Korea (ca) 8. Chief General Manager, Ramgarh Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., P.O. Ramgarh, Dist. (C.G.) 9. Chief General Manager, Bisrampur Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., P.O. Bisrampur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Jivendra Prasad Tiwari, S/o. Shri NON— APPLICANTS Petitioners P Jagdish years EX—ITI Prasad Trade Tiwari, Apprentice aged about 29 Electr1c1an Hasdeo Area South K Eastern Coalfields Ltd Distt Kore @ a 2. Prashant Kumar Patel, S/O. Shri Sumeshwar Prasad- Patel, aged about 28 years, Ex—ITI Trade Apprentice E1€ctrician, Hasdeo Area, South Eastern Coalflelds Ltd., Distt.Korea (C‘GJ. 3. Shiv Kumar Patel, S/o. Shri Ram Pratap Patel aged about 30 years Ex 1T1 Trade Apprentlce Elecmclan Chmmm Area South Eastern C0a1f1e1ds Ltd., D1stt.Korea (C.G.). 4. Indralal Patel, S/o. Shri Ram Sumiran Patel aged about 31 years, X»lTl Trade Apprentlce Fltter .ChmmrrvAi’ea South Eastern Coalflelds htd., Dlstt. Surgwa (C.G.}. 5. Narenclra Kumar Patel, S/o. Shri Buddhsen Patel, aged about 3 l years, X~ITI Trade Apprentice Fitter, Chirimiri Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., DisttKorea (C.G.}. 6. Rajesh Soni, S/o. Shri Girish Prasad Soni, aged about 34 years, EX—ITI g/ Trade Apprentice Fitter, Chirimiri Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Distt.Korea (C.G.). 7. Vanshpati Patel, S/o. Shri Ramkaran Patel, aged about 33 years, EX—ITI Trade Apprentice Electrician, Hasdeo .“Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., DisttKorea (C.G.). 8. Vishnu Kant Patel, S/o. Shri " Rameshwar Prasad Patel, aged about 28 years, Ex—ITI Trade Apprentice Electrician, Hasdeo Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Distt.Korea (C.G.;. 9. Jawahar Lal Patel, S/o. Shri Ramkhilawan Patel, aged about 28 years, EX—ITI Trade Apprentice Electrician, Hasdeo Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Distt.Korea (C.G.)., 10. Bhupendra Singh, S/o. Dalpratap Singh, aged about 28 years, EX—ITI . Trade Apprentice Electrician, Hasdeo ‘ Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Distt.Korea (C‘GJ. 11. Narendra Singh, S/o. Shri Gopinath Singh, aged about 27 years, EX-ITI ‘ Trade Apprentice Electrician, Hasdeo Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd; Distt.Korea (C.G;). 12. KrishriaNand Shanna, S/o. Shri Ram Milan Sharma, aged about 27 ‘ years, EX—ITI Trade Apprentice Electrician, Hasdeo Area, south Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Distt.Korea i, too). .13. Narendra Kumar Singh, S/o. Shri Ram Ashray Singh&gedabout29 years, Ex—ITI Trade Apprentice Electrician, Hasdeo Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Distt.Korea (C.G.). 14.‘ Virendra Singh, S/o. Shri Motilal Singh, aged about 31 years, EX—ITI Trade Apprentice Electrician, Hasdeo Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Disttxorea (co). 15. Ramraj Patel, S/o. Shri Narmada Prasad Patel, aged about 30 years, EX-ITI Trade Apprentice Electrician, Hasdeo Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd‘, Distt.Korea (C.G.). 16. Upendra Singh Parihar, S/o. Shri Shobhanath Singh Parihar, aged about 28 years, EX—ITI Trade ’ Apprentice Electrician, Hasdeo Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Distt.Korea (C.G.). 17. Rajesh Tiwari, S/o. Shri S.N.Tiwari, aged about 28 years, EX—ITI Trade Apprentice Electrician, Hasdeo Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., " Distt.Korea (C.G.)‘ 18. Shrikant Sharrna, S/o. Shri Triveni Prasad Sharrna, aged about 27 years, Ex—ITI Trade Apprentice Electrician, Hasdeo Area, South Eastern Coaliields Ltd., Distt.Korea (C.G.). 19. Hetlal Singh, S/o. Shri Motilai singh aged about 3 l years, EX—ITI Trade Apprentice Electrician, Hasdeo Area, l “ South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Distt.Korea (C.G.). 20. Samar Bahadur Singh, S/o. Shri Vidheshawari Singh, aged about 30 years, EX—ITI Trade Apprentice Electrician, Hasdeo Area, South ‘ Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Distt.Korea . r (C.G.)r. 21. Rajendra Prasad Patel, s/o. Shri Mudi Prasad Patel, aged about 28 years, EXTITI Trade Apprentice W. m C53 Electrician, Hasdeo Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Distt.Korea (C.G.). 22. Kaushal Singh, S/o. Shri Ramdhani Singh, aged about 28 years, EXJITI Trade Apprentice Fitter, ‘Chirimiri Q/ Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Distt.Surguja (C.G.). 23. Nemchndra Dubey, S/o. Shri Sambhu Prasad Dubey, aged about 3O years, EX—ITI Trade Apprentice Q/ Fitter, Chirimiri Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Distt.Surguja (C.G.). 24. Hetlal Singh, S/o. Shri Keshav Singh, aged about 23 years, EX-ITI Trade, Apprentice Fitter, Ramgarh Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Distt; (ca). 25. Nagendra Singh, S/o. Shri Keshav Singh, aged about 23 years, EX—ITI Trade Apprentice Fitter, Bishrampur I. $ Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Distt.Surguja (C.G.). APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DT. 8/ 11/05 PASSED IN W.P,1357 [02 n« ‘ .. ,1 agnpu: Ar “no "nvmlicanfg mGH COURT OF CHHA'I‘TISGARH AT BILASPU \, M. C. c. No. 254 of 2065 Petitioners R€spondents Post for order on 2 & JApn'l, 2006. a g"x I Satish K.Agnihotri Sd/i " s f j Judge R ‘ HIGH COURT OF‘ CHHA’ITISGARH AT BILASPUR M. C. C. No. 254 of2005 Petitioners Chairman, Coal India Ltd. 5r. others Versus Respondents Jivsndm Pmsad Tiwan' 6a othérs Single Bench : Hon’ble Mr, Justics Satish K. Aglihotri. g]. Shri P. S. Nair, Senior Advpgatg with Shri Praveen Das, Advocate fof the. petitioners. I i Shn‘ Rahul Mishra, Advocate for the respondents. O R D E R (28km 2006) The following order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. This petition seeks review of the order dated 8. 1 1.2005 passed by this Court 1'11 W. P. No. 1357(2062, on the. groundlinter aliajhat the judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman/MD, Mahanadi Coamelds Ltd. and othexs Vs. Sadashib ‘1 Behera 85 others { (2005) 2 S.C.C. 396} was not considered. 0t The writ petition was filed by the present respondents No. 1 to 25, seeking appointment of the writ petitioners as General Mazdoor Category—1 w.e.f. the successful completion of their apprenticeship with all consequential benefits. It was further prayed that the Writ petitioners he granted proficiency certificate as per the provisions of Section 21 of the Apprentices Act, 1961. This Court after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and having carefully perused the judgment of the Supranm: Court passed in the casg of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. U. P. Parivah§n Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sang}: and others { (1995) 2 S.C.C. 1’, directad the review petitionors to consider the. case of the writ petitionsrs for absorph'on on tho post of Geneml Mazdoor Category- 1 immediately after the ban imposed ,vide order dated 28th July, 2000, issued by the Ministry of Coal Ltd. is lifted, in aoconiemce with the direction passed by me Supreme Coult in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation“ and another (supra). It was further expected that the review petitioners would take. steps to get the relaxation from ban for appointment of the writ petitioners 011 the above stated posts. The review petitioners in the present review petition are seeking rehearing of the writ petition on the ground that the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Chairman/MD, Mahanadi oaameids Ltd. and others (supra) has had that it is not abngatory on the part of the employer to offer any employment to any apprentice who has completed the period of his apprenticeship in absence of any condition in the. contract which is entered into between the employer and the apprentice at the time of commencement of his apprenticeship training. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners did not point out the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ChairmanlMD, l Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and others (supra) at the time of hearing of the writ petition and this can not be treated as error apparent on the face of the record to entertain the review petition. The. Supreme he / / Court in Dokka Samuel Vs. Dr acoh Lazarus Chelly { (1997) 4 SCC 478} has observed as undsr:- “4. m T11€ omission to cite. an authority of law is Ilot a ground for revieing the prior udgment saying that them is an error apparant on the. face of the record, since the counsel as n r t he committed a error in not binging to the notice of the Cour t relevant precedents. XXXXX’ In the judgment in earlier case ie. U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and another (pra) the Supreme ourt observed as under: - “7. The aforesaid provision are su$ciently indicative of the fact that th trainig iparted is desired to be result~oiented; and the trainees are treated akin to employees. Even so,‘ Section 22 of the Act states, and it is this provision which has been essed into service by the appellants, that it shail not he obligatory on the part of the empyer to Oder any employment to any apprentice who has complete the period of his apprentichip traiing in his establishment unless there be a condition in the ontract to he contrary. The model contract form findin place in Schedule Vl of the Rules echoes the voice of Section 22 (1) in its second para. T Corporation has placed on cord a model contract for entered into between it and th trainees which also states about the aforesaid non-oblition.” ga Subsequetly, the $upree Court in e case of harman/M, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and others sra) observed as under:— “7. These proisions ‘sho that aprentice. is a peon who is undergoing a training n pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship duly registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser and the employer Who is imparting training is under no obligation to offer any employment to such a person. The legislature has made the aforesaid position clear by making a specitic provision in this J w j h su C s e n m r pr lo d es n c t g he re m e n m th CiD (up v w p rs i regard namgly Section 22 of the Act and sub-swtion (1) th€rsof ‘ lays down that it shall not be obligatory on thg pent of tha Employar to Gifer my employment to any apprentico who has completod the period of his apprenticeship training. Subsection (2) however provides that notwithstanding anyihing in sub-section (1) Where there is a condition in a contract of apprenticeship that an apprentice shall, after successful completion of apprenticeship training, serve the employer, the employer shall, on such completion, be bound to offer suitable employment to the apprentice, and the apprentice shall be bound to serve the employer in that capacity (for such period and on such remuneration as may ‘be sixecified in the. contract. Thus the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder show that in absence of any condition in the contract which is entered into between the employer and the apprentice at the time of commencement of his apprenticeship training and which is registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser to the effect that the apprentice shall Serve the employer, an apprentice cannot claim any right to get an employment on successful completion of his 5 7. There is no modification of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court by the subsequent decision, as is submitted by the review petitioners in the review petition. The directions passed by the Supreme Court in the case. of U. P. “State Road Transport Corporation and another (supra) still holds good. As such there is no question of review of the earlier order dated 8. 11.2005 " passed inw.P.No. 1357/2002. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Government of T.N. and others Vs. M. Ananchu Asmi and others {(2005) 2 SCC 332} has observed as under:— “3. Certain contenn'ons are raised on the merits, especially, in regard to the conclusion of this Court that the process of absorption did not take place in 1975, We are not inclined to i mhear thf: arguments on merits. If the petitionsrs failed to furnish the necessary material aven dun‘ng the pendency of appeal in this Cmu't, that is no ground to review the judgment. XXXXX" 9. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Haridas Das Vs. Smt. Usha Rani Banik 55 others { 2006 (3) Supreme 125}, after having considered the decisions of the Supreme Court in t1'1e. oases of M/s Thungabhadra Industries Ltd, Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1964 1372), Meera Bhanja Vs. Smt’ Nirmala Kumari Choudhaiy (AIR 1995 SC 455), Aribam Tuleshwar Shanna Vs, Aribam Pishak Shanna (AIR 1979 SC 1047), and Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde Vs. Malljkaijun Bhavanappa Tiruymale (AIR 1960 SC 137), has-observed as under:- v “13, In order to appreciate the scope of a review, Section 114 of the CPC has to be read, but this section does not even adumbrate the ambit of interference excepted of the Court since it merely states that it “may make such order thereon as it thinks tit.” The parameters axe prescn'bed in Order XLVII of the CPC and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing “on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the. records or for any other sufficient reason”. The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible, Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all W the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the Court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. This is amply evident from the explanation in Rule ~1 of the Order XLVII which states that the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court‘is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of. a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Where the order in question is appealable the aggrieved party has adequate and K\ &. / efflcacious Iemady and t11€ Court should exercise the power t9 review its order with the greatest circumspection. xxxxx" 10. Af the hearing of this leview petition, lealried counsel appearing for The writ petitioners filed an affidavit pointing out that there are vacancies mid the review petitioners are making appointinent. I am not inch'hed to take into consideration this fact at this stage, as it will amount to rehean'ng of the case on merit. Keeping in View the above statett observations of the Supreme Court and having regand to the facts of the present case, this petition for review of the earlier order dated 8. 1 1.2005 passed by this Court in WP. No. 1357 of 2002, is dismissed. No order as to costs. » Sdl— ' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 11. ,/