2025:HHC:21180-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No. 100 of 2016 a/w LPA Nos. 95, 96, 98, 99, 101, 102 and 216 of 2016 Decided on: 28.06.2025 __________________________________________________________ LPA No. 100 of 2016 H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. and another ...Appellants Versus Sanjay Badoga and others ...Respondents LPA No. 95 of 2016 H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. and another ...Appellants Versus Abhishek Sood ...Respondents LPA No. 96 of 2016 H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. and another ...Appellants Versus Rohit Kumar ...Respondents LPA No. 98 of 2016 H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. and another ...Appellants Versus Yashpal Singh and others ...Respondents 2025:HHC:21180-DB - 2 - LPA No. 99 of 2016 H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. and another ...Appellants Versus Gourav and others ...Respondents LPA No. 101 of 2016 H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. and another ...Appellants Versus Desh Raj and others ...Respondents LPA No. 102 of 2016 H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. and another ...Appellants Versus Vivek Chaudhry ...Respondents LPA No. 216 of 2016 H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. and another ...Appellants Versus Gurpal Singh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the appellant(s): Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Ms. Sugandh Verma and Mr. Surender Kumar, Advocates in all the appeals. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:21180-DB - 3 - For the respondent(s): Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, in all the appeals. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The present Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the orders passed by learned Single Judge dated 28.05.2015, wherein while deciding six writ petitions, directions were given to re-engage the writ petitioner(s) till the regular process was initiated for filling up the posts of Assistant Engineers/Juniors Engineers and Assistant Linemen. The minimum of pay scales of the said posts was also directed to be paid instead of stipend. 2. The reasoning behind allowing the writ petitions by the learned Single Judge is that the respondent-Board adopted a new mode of appointment by terming their appointments as apprentice trainees and they had been posted against particular sanctioned posts and their duty roster Annexure P-10, was taken into consideration. Thus, irrespective of the contract entered into between the Board and the apprentices, it was held that terms and conditions of the contract are contrary to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and 2025:HHC:21180-DB - 4 - that it was an exploitive method to engage the petitioners for a period of one year. The nomenclature of the trainee had been adopted by the Board to deny them salary at par with the regular/contractual appointees and finding was recorded as unfair labour practice, on account of the fact that they were doing the same duties as per log sheets and the posting in difficult and tribal areas which were lying vacant. 3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant(s)- Board has submitted that the learned Single Judge lost sight of the fact that the writ petitioners themselves had applied in pursuance of advertisement issued on 28.05.2011 for appointments which were either Apprentices Assistant Engineer both in Civil and Electrical Line and had accepted the terms and conditions of the agreement inter se the parties. The terms had come to an end and they had filed writ petition(s), seeking re-engagements and the same was disposed of on 07.11.2012, Annexure P-6. Thereafter, they had filed representation for consideration. A speaking order was passed on 05.01.2013, (Annexure P-8), which is appended with the writ petition(s), but had 2025:HHC:21180-DB - 5 - never been challenged. The prayer made in the writ petition was for continuance in the service and that the appointment may be held illegal and void ab initio which had been objected to by the Board by filing its reply that the order had not been challenged and all these aspects were overlooked by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions. 4. On the other hand, it has been argued by counsel for the writ petitioners-respondents that learned Single Judge has recorded finding of unfair labour practice, therefore, in such circumstances; it is not justified for the appellate Court now to interfere in the well reasoned order passed. It is also to be noticed that they are doing the onerous duties but were given only Rs.10,000 as stipend. It is further argued that requisite procedure under the Apprenticeship Act was not followed and necessary certificates were not issued and therefore, challenge had been raised regarding non-extension of the period. 5. After hearing counsel for both the sides, we are of the considered opinion that there is merit in the appeal. 2025:HHC:21180-DB - 6 - 6. A perusal of the advertisement (Annexure P-2) issued at the first instance would go on to show that, in the appeal record 45 numbers Apprentice Assistant Engineer [Electrical] and 5 numbers. Apprentices Assistant Engineers (Civil) were proposed to be appointed for a period of one year, as per the terms and conditions of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961, on monthly fixed stipend of Rs.10,000/- only. The apprentice training was also conditional that it was for the said period with no guarantee for the job and they would be put in different locations in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The relevant part of the Advertisement reads as under:- “Reference: Advertisement No. HPSEBL/ Appt/ Apprentice/2011 dated Apprenticeship details: Selection of Apprentices Assistant Engineers (Electrical/Civil) in H.P. State Electricity Board Limited. The HPSEB Ltd proposes to appoint 45 Nos Apprentices Assistant Engineers (Electrical) and 5 Nos. Apprentices Assistant Engineers (Civil) purely on merit basis for a period of one year as per terms & conditions of Apprenticeship Act, 1961 on monthly fixed stipend of Rs.10,000/- only. The un-employed youths of Himachali bonafide between 18 to 30 years on the date of advertisement of these posts having Degree in Electrical, Degree in Computer Science & IT Engineering and Degree in Electronic/Electronics Communication and Degree in Civil Engineering from a recognized institute by H.P. Govt. with minimum 55% marks who wish to the trained in HPSEB Ltd. and fulfill the following criteria may apply on below prescribed application form to the undersigned. The detail of posts allotted to each stream is as under: 2025:HHC:21180-DB - 7 - Name of post Educational qualification No. of vacancies Assistant Engineer (Elect) i) Degree in Electrical Engineering ii) Degree in Computer Science & IT Engineering. iii) Degree in Electronic/Electronic & Communication. 35 posts 7 posts 3 posts Assistant Engineer (Civil) i) Degree in civil Engineering 5 posts Other terms & conditions: 1. The apprenticeship training is for a fixed period of one year duration with no guarantee for job. 2. The apprentices are entitled to holidays for Sunday’s & 3 National Holidays only. For other absence period, the stipend will be deducted proportionately . 3. Continuous absence from training without intimation for more than 5 days will expel the candidature of the apprentice. 4. The apprentices will be put on training in different locations in the State of H.P. where the HPSEBL has its activities. 5. Medical fitness is necessary. The Apprentices are required to be examined medically by the concerned CMO before joining the training. 6. Applications duly filled in with full details so as to reach in this office on or before 20th June positively. Thereafter no applications shall be entertained. Executive Engineer (Pers.) HPSEBL, Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla-4. 7. In pursuance of the same, the letter of appointments were issued on 08.11.2011, which also provided that the duration of the apprenticeship was to be for the period of one year from the date of joining and 2025:HHC:21180-DB - 8 - the amount was also specified of Rs.10,000/- and the fact that it was not considered as employment and will not confer any right on the candidate to claim emolument as per Clause No. 2. The contract was to be executed on judicial paper under the provisions of the Act. Various other conditions regarding termination of apprenticeship by giving seven days notice and right to leave the apprenticeship, if no adverse reports are received, were put. The same read as under: “Dear Sir, We are pleased to offer you apprenticeship as Apprentice Engineer (Electrical) in HPSEB Ltd. subject to the following terms and conditions:- 1. The duration of the apprenticeship shall be for a maximum period of 12 months from the date of joining. 2. This is not to be considered as employment and will not confer any right on the candidate to claim employment in HPSEB Ltd. 3. You will execute an contract on judicial paper of Rs.5/- under the Apprentice Act, 1961 (Performa enclosed). 4. The Apprentice Engineer (Electrical) can leave the apprenticeship, if no adverse reports are received. [ 5. H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. can also terminate the apprenticeship by giving 7 days notice. 6. A certificate will be awarded on successful completion of 1 years apprenticeship, if no adverse reports are received. 7. A report on performance and conduct of the 2025:HHC:21180-DB - 9 - Apprentice Engineer (Electrical) will be obtained every three months. 8. The Apprentice Engineer (Electrical) shall be paid stipend Rs.10,000/- per month. 9. The Apprentice Engineer (Electrical) can take up 12 days casual leave.” 8. Apparently the said terms were duly accepted by the petitioners-apprentices and the deed was duly executed which has also been placed on record as Annexure P-4 by the Board. As their term was coming to an end, 32 of the Apprentices apparently filed Civil Writ Petition No.9070 of 2012, Annexure P-6, wherein, the limited prayer was that they were given some more extension till the new batch is engaged. Liberty was thus given to approach the Board to consider and to take the appropriate action. The relevant order passed by the Coordinate Bench on 07.11.202012, reads as under: “All the petitioners are doing their apprenticeship under the respondent. The period was one year. That is over/getting over. Petitioners pray that they may be given some more extension till the new batch is engaged. It is for the petitioners to approach the respondent, in which case the respondent will consider the request and take appropriate action in accordance with law, equity and justice. The decision on the request may be taken preferably within two weeks. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Copy dasti. 2025:HHC:21180-DB - 10 - -sd- Kurian Joseph, CJ. -sd- Dharam Chand Chaudhary,J. 9. In pursuance of the same, the representation was filed praying that some Rule or Policy be framed and some relaxation for appointment in the Board be given. The said representation was duly considered, by passing a speaking order by the Executive Director (Personnel) on 05.01.2013 and by taking into consideration the fact that the training had expired in the month of November and December, 2012 and they could not claim extension and there was no such provision to appoint them on contract basis or otherwise. The same was done after hearing as many as nine of the writ petitioners, and the plea was rejected, keeping in view the fact that terms and conditions which had been entered inter se the parties, the agreement entered and their lack of right to be claiming regularization of permanency. The relevant portion reads as under: “And whereas the undersigned have carefully gone through the contents of writ petitions and orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court and it has been noted that the petitioners were engaged in the Respondent-Board as Apprentice Assistant Engineers for one year apprenticeship training as prescribed under Section 6 of the Apprentices Act, 1961. It is also 2025:HHC:21180-DB - 11 - noted that necessary condition to the effect that the apprenticeship training is for a fixed period of one year duration with no guarantee of job was also incorporated in their engagement letters. Besides, an agreement on a non-judicial stamp paper duly attested by the Public Notary concerned was also executed between petitioners and concerned employer agreed therein by both the parties that the first party (petitioners) shall remain on apprenticeship training with second party for one year and the apprenticeship training shall ipso-facto stand terminated on the last working day. It was also agreed that the first party (petitioners) will not have any right to claim regularization or permanent absorption in the Respondent-board. The period of one year apprenticeship training of the petitioners was expired during the month of 11/2012 & 12/2012. The petitioners cannot claim extension in their apprenticeship training as a matter of right. In view of this, the petitioners have been discharged from duty on completion of one year apprenticeship training of Assistant Engineers w.e.f. the date of completion of one year by the Respondent Board. In addition to above, there is no provision in the Apprenticeship Act/Rules and R & P Rules to appoint the apprentice trainees on contract basis or otherwise. All the direct recruitments of the above said categories in the respondents Board Ltd. either on regular basis or on contract basis through H.P. Public Service Commission by completing all codal formalities i.e. written test etc. NOW THEREFORE, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstance of the case, the representations of the petitioners being devoid of merits may not appropriate for consideration and accordingly rejected. All the petitioners may be informed accordingly. -sd- Executing Director (Personnel) H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla-4. 10. It is pertinent to notice that the said order is mentioned in the writ petition attached was not subject matter of challenge as noticed earlier. It is thus apparent 2025:HHC:21180-DB - 12 - that the petitioner having accepted the terms of appointment in view of the advertisement were bound by the said agreement. They could not turn around and claim to the contrary in the writ petition. Rather even when they had approached this Court earlier, the limited prayer was for some more extension till the new batch was engaged and the order has already been reproduced. Having chosen not to challenge the order and terms and conditions earlier, they would also not be entitled to raise a new plea which has been done so in the writ petition. The principle of Order 2 Rule 2 would also come play and they had given up their right as such, when they first approached this Court. 11. Apparently by filing the representation a new stand was taken and once having been rejected by a speaking order, the same was not subject matter of challenge. The learned Single Judge thus examined the matter from a totally new perspective without keeping these facts in mind and resultantly allowed the petition, which was never the issue of unfair labour practice, as such, which was never raised at the initial stage by the writ petitioners. If they had been aggrieved by the terms 2025:HHC:21180-DB - 13 - and conditions as per the settled principle and by the terms of the advertisement and the employment terms had binding force with the employer and the employee for the subsequent stage, and they cannot seek to wriggle out of the same and challenge it on the fact that the provision’s of Apprenticeship Act were violated. 12. In such circumstances, the exercise which had been done by the learned Single Judge for calling of the affidavits and by holding that it was unfair labour practice, as such, in the manner in which the duties had been assigned and that the apprentices were being exploited was beyond the purview of the writ Court. 13. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge cannot stand the judicial scrutiny and accordingly, the appeals have been necessarily to be allowed. 14. It is also pertinent to notice that while issuing notice way back on 16.06.2016, the operation of the impugned judgment had been stayed and thereafter the Board would have also advertised the said post and it was always open to the writ petitioners to apply for the same in terms of their qualification if they were duly 2025:HHC:21180-DB - 14 - qualified. Resultantly, in view of the above observation the present appeals are allowed and the writ petitions are dismissed and the judgment dated 28.05.2015 is set aside. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. A copy of this order be placed in the other connected files. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge June, 28 2025 [himani/Shivender]