Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeal No. 4720 of 1984. Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 24th November	 1983 of the Punjab and Haryana HIGH Court in C.W.P. No. 4839 of 1983. V.M. Tarkande and A.K. Goel	 for the Appellant. Ashwani Kumar and A.K. Panda for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD	 C.J. The appellants 22 in number	 who hold a three year Diploma in Electrical Engineering Course from the State Board of Technical Education	 Punjab	 were appointed as apprentices in August 1981. The Principal	 Technical Training Institute	 Punjab State Electricity Board	 Patiala	 who is respondent 3 herein	 issued the requisite certificates to the appellants on successful completion by them of one year 's apprenticeship. After obtaining those certificates the appellants registered their names with the Employment Exchanges in Punjab. The Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation	 Department of Labour (D.G.E.T.)	 Government of India	 New Delhi	 issued instructions to various offices including the Punjab State Electricity Board. Patiala	 respondent 2 herein	 asking that necessary action should be taken to ensure that the trained apprentices are absorbed in industries upto a minimum of 50 per cent of direct recruitment vacancies. These instructions were notified on March 23	 1983. On July 27	 1983	 respondent 2 advertised 50 posts of Junior Engineers II (Electrical) in its establishment	 for which the appellant had successfully completed a one year apprenticeship. The appellants filed a writ petition (No. 4839 of 1983) in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana	 challenging the issuance of the advertisement on the ground that	 under their respective letters of appointment	 they were entitled to be appointed to 50 percent of the posts which were advertised by respondent 2. That writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the letters of appointment issued to the appellants did not contain any assu 155 rance or undertaking that they will be absorbed in the service of the Punjab State Electricity Board; that 47 per cent of the vacancies were already reserved for Scheduled Castes	 Scheduled Tribes	 backward classes	 ex service men	 etc.; and that	 if another 50 per cent of the posts were to be reserved for apprenticeship trainees	 almost 100 per cent posts shall have been put in the reserved category which would be contrary to law. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the high court. Section 22(1) of the 	 52 of 1961	 provides that it shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer any employment to any apprentice who has completed the period of his apprenticeship training in his establishment nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to accept an employment under the employer. This provision is	 however	 subject to the non obstante clause in sub section (2) of section 22 which reads as follows: "Notwithstanding anything in sub section (1)	 where there is a condition in a contract of apprenticeship that the apprentice shall	 after the successful completion of the 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 specified in the contract". (The proviso to this sub section is not relevant for our purpose) . This sub section leaves no doubt that	 despite the provision contained in sub section (1)	 the employer is under an obligation to offer suitable employment to the apprentice if the contract of apprenticeship contains a condition that the apprentice shall serve the employer after the successful completion of the training. Indeed	 when such an offer is made	 the apprentice on his part is bound to serve the employer in the capacity in which he was working as an apprentice. The question which	 therefore	 arises for consideration is whether there is a condition in the contract of apprenticeship of the appellants that they shall serve the employer after the successful 156 completion of their apprenticeship training. In this behalf	 Para graph 2 of the letters of appointment under which the appellants were appointed as apprentices is important. It reads thus: "It should be clearly understood that you shall be on stipendary training for a period of one year and on successful completion of this training	 you shall be absorbed in the department if there are vacancies	 without any commitment subject to the stipulation that during the waiting period after one year s apprenticeship	 you will not be paid any remuneration". It is urged on behalf of the respondents that	 this particular term in the contract of apprenticeship cannot be construed as a condition that the apprentices shall	 after the successful completion of their apprenticeship training	 serve the employer. We find it difficult to accept this submission. Paragraph 2 of the letters of appointment is intended to convey the meaning that there is an obligation on the apprentices to serve the employer after the successful completion of the training. This condition is not happily expressed but	 in matters such as the one before us	 one must take a broad and commonsense view of the terms of employment. It is not pro per in such cases to indulge in a hair splitting approach and find an escape for defeating the rights of employees. When paragraph 2 says that the apprentice "shall be absorbed in the department"	 the only reasonable interpretation to put upon that expression is that it creates reciprocal rights and obligation of the parties to the contract of apprenticeship	 namely	 the employee and the employer "You shall be absorbed" is a double edged term of the contract. It binds the employer to offer employment to the apprentice (if there is a vacancy) and	 equally	 it binds the apprentice to accept the offer. Indeed	 that is why	 instead of advancing the argument which was made before us	 the stand taken by the State of Punjab in the High Court was that the Executive Engineer	 who sent the letters of appointment	 had no authority to incorporate the particular condition in those letters. That contention is wholly without substance and in any event	 remains unsubstantiated. It is quite difficult to accept that a senior officer in the position of an Executive would incorporate a specific term in the contract of apprenticeship without being authorised to do so. That is also why yet another defence was taken by the State of 157 Punjab to the contention of the appellants. That defence was that the words "without any commitment" which occurs in paragraph 2 of the letters of appointment	 show that there is no obligation on the part of the employer to employ the apprentices after their period of training is over. There is no substance in that contention also because	 in the context in which the expression "without any commitment" occurs	 it only means that the obligation of the employer to offer employment to the apprentice and the corresponding obligation of the apprentice to serve the employer arises only if and when there is a vacancy in which the apprentice can be appointed. This is made clear by the clause	 "you shall be absorbed in the department if there are vacancies '	 which precedes the expression "without any commitment". This is plain commonsense because	 if there is no vacancy in which an apprentice can be appointed	 there can be no obligation to appoint him and there can	 evidently	 be no obligation upon the apprentice to serve the employer. These reciprocal rights and obligations	 namely	 to serve and offer employment	 arise on the occurrence of a vacancy in which an apprentice can be appointed. We are also of the opinion that	 apart from the implications arising out of Section 22(2) of the 	 paragraph 2 of the letters of appointment creates a binding obligation upon the employer to absorb the apprentices in the department on the successful completion of the training period	 provided there is a vacancy in which the apprentices can be appointed. It would be contrary both to the letter and spirit of paragraph 2 of the letters of appointment to hold	 that	 even if there is a vacancy in which an apprentice can be appointed after the successful completion of his training	 the employer is free not to appoint the apprentice and fill that vacancy by appointing an outsider. Such a reading of the assurance contained in paragraph 2 will also frustrate the very object of the provision made by the legislature in Section 22 (2) of the Act The object of that provision is to guarantee	 to the extent of the existence of vacancies	 that the apprentices will not be rendered jobless after they complete their training. No other point was argued before us on behalf of the respondents. We would	 however	 like to indicate that there is no substance in the contention taken by the respondents before the High Court that offering employment to the appellants to the extent of 50 percent of the posts will violate the law	 as laid down by this Court	 in regard to reservation of posts. The appellants are entitled 158 to be appointed in the available vacancies not because of any reservation of posts in their favour but because of the provisions of Section 22(2) of the and the contractual obligations arising under paragraph 2 of the letters of appointment. For these reasons	 we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. A writ shall issue directing the respondents to absorb the appellants as "Junior Engineers II(Electrical) in the 22 vacancies which will form a part of the fifty vacancies which are advertised by respondent 2	 The Punjab State Electricity Board	 Patiala. The appellants will get their costs here and in the High Court	 which we quantify at rupees five thousand in all.

In accordance with the provisions of the and in terms of Para 2 of the contract of apprenticeship the appellants completed a one year apprenticeship under respondent No. 2	 Punjab State Electricity Board. Contrary to the Instructions	 noticed on March 23rd	 1983 and issued by of the Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation	 Department of Labour (D.G.E.T ) Government of India to all officers asking them to take necessary action to ensure that the trained apprentices are absorbed in industries upto a minimum of 50 per cent of direct recruitment vacancies	 the Board advertised on July 27	 1983 50 posts of Junior Engineers II (Electrical) in its establishment for which the appellants had successfully completed a one year apprenticeship under it. The appellants	 therefore	 filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana	 challenging the issuance of the advertisement on the ground that under their respective letters of appointment	 they were entitled to be appointed to 50 per cent of posts which were advertised by respondent No 2. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the letters of appointment issued to the appellant did not contain any assurance or undertaking that they will be absorbed in the service of the Punjab State Electricity Board; that 47 per cent of the vacancies were already reserved for Scheduled Castes	 Scheduled Tribes	 backward classes	 ex servicemen	 etc	 and that	 if another 50 per cent of the posts were to be reserved for apprenticeship trainees	 almost 100 per cent posts shall have been put in the reserved category which would be contrary to law. Hence the appeal by special leave Allowing the appeal	 the Court	 ^ HELD. 1. The object of Section 22(2) of the Apprentice Act 1961 is to guarantee to the extent of the existence of vacancies that the apprentices will not be rendered jobless after they complete their training. 153 2.1. Sub section (2) of section 22 leaves no doubt that	 despite the A provision contained in sub section (1)	 the employer is under an obligation to offer suitable employment to the apprentice if the contract of apprentice. ship contains a condition that the apprentice shall serve the employer after the successful completion of the training. Indeed	 when such an offer is made the apprentice on his part is bound to serve the employer in the capacity in which he was working as an apprentice. In a contract of apprenticeship	 if a condition is not happily expressed the Court must take a broad and commonsense view of the terms of the employment. It in not proper in such cases to indulge in a hair splitting approach and find an escape for defeating the rights of employees. [155 F G] 2.2. Paragraph 2 of the letters of appointment is intended to convey the meaning that there is an obligation on the apprentices to serve the employer after the successful completion of the training. When paragraph 2 says that the apprentice "shall be absorbed in the department" the only reasonable interpretation to put upon that expression is that it creates reciprocal rights and obligations on the parties to the contract of apprenticeship	 namely	 the employee and the employer. "You shall be absorbed" is a double edged term of the contract. It binds the employer to offer employment to the apprentice (if there is a vacancy) and	 equally	 it binds the apprentice to accept the offer. In the context in which the expression "without any commitment" occurs	 it only means that the obligation of the employer to offer employment to the apprentice and the corresponding obligation of the apprentice to serve the employer arises only if and when there is a vacancy in which the apprentice can be appointed. Paragraph 2 of the letters of appointment creates a binding obligation upon the employer to absorb the apprentices in the department on the successful completion of the training period	 provided there is a vacancy in which the apprentices can be appointed. It would be contrary both to the letter and spirit of paragraph 2 of the letters of appointment to hold that even if there is a vacancy in which an apprentice can be appointed after the successful completion of his training	 the employer is free not to appoint the apprentice and fill that vacancy by appointing an outsider Such a reading of the assurance contained in paragraph 2 will also frustrate the very object of the provision made by the legislature in section 22(2) of the apprentice Act. [157 B; E F] 3. The contention that the Executive Engineer	 who sent the letters of appointment	 had no authority to incorporate the particular condition in those letters cannot be accepted in as much as a senior officer in the position of an Executive Engineer would not incorporate a specific term in the contract of apprenticeship without being authorised to do so. [156 G H] 4. In the instant case	 offering employment to the appellants to the extent of 50 per cent of the posts will not violate the law	 as laid down by this Court	 in regard to reservation of posts. The appellants are entitled to be appointed in the available vacancies not because of any reservation of posts in their favour but because of the provisions of section 22(2) of the 154 Apprertices Act and the contractual obligations arising under paragraph 2 of the letters of appointment. [157 H; 158 A]