JUDGMENT:- The petitioner MSRTC has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.672/88 directing the petitioner to provide employment to the respondent as a Clerk on the ground that he has already completed his apprenticeship training and as per the circulars he was not required to undergo any examination thereafter. According to the petitioner, the Industrial Court has not considered the circulars particularly the circular dated 30.5.1979 and 7.5.1981. 2. The facts in brief are thus :- The respondent was appointed as a trade apprentice with the petitioner with effect from 31.3.1978 for a period of one year ending with 30.3.1979 by the order issued on 15.4.1978. On completion of the apprenticeship training, the engagement would automatically stand terminated with effect from 30.3.1979. The respondent filed a Complaint before the Industrial Court about unfair labour practice contending that after completion of the said apprenticeship he was working as a Clerk on daily paid basis for a period of 133 days. As per the terms of the agreement it was not necessary for him to appear for any written examination particularly in view of the circular dated 31.3.1984 and as he had completed the apprenticeship training he was required to be absorbed directly. According to the respondent, in spite of having completed apprenticeship training satisfactorily under the petitioner Corporation, the Circular of 1984 was ignored and he was compelled to appear for written examination. According to him, that examination was not necessary and by not giving appointment in spite of having completed the apprenticeship satisfactorily, the Corporation was acting in violation of the Circular of 1984 in respect of the respondent and, therefore, it was not fair labour practice, He sought direction to the petitioner to provide employment to him as a Clerk, 3. The petitioner contested the said complaint contending that as per the apprenticeship appointment order dated 15.4,1978 there was no assurance of service and in fact the service was to automatically stand terminated on completion of one year. It is further contended that in view of that Circular of 1979 and again o£1.5,1981 it was necessary for the petitioner, who had completed trade apprenticeship, to appear for the examination and only on clearing that examination, he could be absorbed in the service. It was further contended that the complaint was barred by limitation. 4. It is further contended that in view of that Circular of 1979 and again o£1.5,1981 it was necessary for the petitioner, who had completed trade apprenticeship, to appear for the examination and only on clearing that examination, he could be absorbed in the service. It was further contended that the complaint was barred by limitation. 4. After hearing the parties, all the contentions of the petitioner were rejected by the Industrial Court, Hence, this Writ Petition. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondent had in fact appeared for the examination for the post of Clerk and he did not get through that examination and. Therefore, now he cannot make any grievance that as per Rules he was not required to appear for the examination, For this, he has placed reliance upon Satish Kumar Gulabchand Jain Vs. Chief Personal Manager, Western Coal Fields Limited and others reported in 1997(1) Mh. L.J. 45 wherein a junior Stenographer appeared for promotion to the post of Senior Stenographer but he could not clear that examination. Later on he contended that having already passed certain proficiency examination, he was not required to undergo the departmental examination, However, this was rejected on the ground that he could not approbate and reprobate, The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of the Circular dated 30.5,1979 read with Circular dated 7.5,1981 it must be held that it was necessary for the apprentices in commercial trade to clear the examination. 7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that both these Circulars stand superseded impliedly by the Circular dated 20.2. 1984 whereby the MSRTC clarified that the persons belonging to the 5 categories, including the apprentices who had completed their apprenticeship satisfactorily, would not be required to be placed before the Selection Committee for the purposes of selection and recruitment. 8. On perusal of the record, one thing becomes clear that the Circular dated 30.5.1979 was issued superseding the earlier Circular dated 20.3.1977. The respondent had completed his apprenticeship satisfactorily on 30.3.1979 as he was appointed for one year with effect from 30.3.1978 to 30.3.1979. There is no dispute that he had completed the apprenticeship satisfactorily. It is true that as per the appointment order, this service would stand terminated on 30.3.1979 afternoon. The respondent had completed his apprenticeship satisfactorily on 30.3.1979 as he was appointed for one year with effect from 30.3.1978 to 30.3.1979. There is no dispute that he had completed the apprenticeship satisfactorily. It is true that as per the appointment order, this service would stand terminated on 30.3.1979 afternoon. However, this could not be the end of the matter. It also shows that the parties were bound to comply with the terms and conditions as laid down in the contract bond. The Industrial Court rightly noted that the said bond was never produced before the Court. The Industrial Court noted that the earlier Circular of 1977. which was superseded by the Circular dated 30.5.1979. was holding the field when the respondent had completed his apprenticeship satisfactorily. That Circular of 1977 was nut produced before the Industrial Court. This Court also gave number of opportunities to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to produce the said Circular as well as the apprenticeship bond, which was executed by the respondent before entering into the apprenticeship for one year hut the petitioner did not produce the record contending that the said record is not available. It is impossible to believe that the office Circular of 1977 would not be available in the office of the petitioner. Therefore, inference may be drawn that the petitioner is not inclined to produce that circular possibly because it would not be favourable to the petitioner. 9. The Circular of 1979 reveals that earlier there was no procedure of initial examination or test before the candidate was selected for being appointed as apprentice. However, the Corporation had taken decision that no person would be appointed as apprentice without initial written examination or test after issuance of this circular. This circular further provided that those, who had completed their apprenticeship successfully, should be considered for employment in temporary vacancies. Clause 2 of this Circular required that apprentices, were not subjected to initial written test, may be required to appear for the written examination or trade test along with other candidates irrespective of their having passed the examination conducted by the Government of India or otherwise. The upper age limit was to be relaxed in case of apprentices to the extent of period of apprenticeship and their temporary service. 10. The upper age limit was to be relaxed in case of apprentices to the extent of period of apprenticeship and their temporary service. 10. It appears that the Circular dated 7.5.1981 was issued to clarify the position in respect of apprentice in commercial trade and the workshop apprentices. Admittedly, the case of the respondent would fall in category of apprentices in commercial trade because he had completed apprenticeship as a Clerk. By this Circular dt.7.5.1981. it was also clarified that the candidates who apply for engagement as apprenticeship, be called for written examination and those who qualify in the written examination be called before the Selection Committee for interview and selection and such candidates, who are so selected as apprentices, are to be absorbed in the available vacancy after completion of the period of apprenticeship satisfactorily. It further clarified that the apprentices who were not subjected to written examination prior to the Circular dated 30.5.1979 may request for their absorption as they had completed their apprenticeship and in such cases they should be put to the written examination and after they qualify in the written examination, they should be considered for absorption if they have completed the apprenticeship satisfactorily. There is no doubt that the Circular dated 7.5.198 I is consistent with the Circular of 1979 and in fact it only clarifies that Circular. 11. However, the tone of the Circular dated 31.3.1984 is totally different. It reveals that the Corporation by passing the Resolution on 3.3.1984 decided the list of preferences to be followed by the Selection Committee. The second para deals with those preferences and directs that the said list of preferences will apply in respect of cases which will go before the Selection Committee. i.e. in respect of candidates who will appear for interview for selection. The next para of the said Circular reads as follows :- "There are certain types of cases in which employment is given without such cases being placed before the sub-committee of S.T Services Board for approval. The preferences to be followed in respect of cases which need not go before the selection committee. i.e. Sub-Committee of S.T. Services Board will be as under:- 1. The Staff of MSRT Corporation retrenched or reverted for want or vacancies. 2. Persons ordered to be re-appointed in appeals of a result of decision on appeal/orders of Labour Court. etc. 3. The preferences to be followed in respect of cases which need not go before the selection committee. i.e. Sub-Committee of S.T. Services Board will be as under:- 1. The Staff of MSRT Corporation retrenched or reverted for want or vacancies. 2. Persons ordered to be re-appointed in appeals of a result of decision on appeal/orders of Labour Court. etc. 3. Alternate employment to driver declared medically unfit or employment to his dependent. 4. Appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of employees who die while on duty or while in service. 5. Apprentices who have completed their apprenticeship satisfactorily." 12. Admittedly. for the purpose of selection for recruitment, the Selection Committee was required to hold the examination and to interview the candidates if necessary and then the Selection Committee Has to prepare the final selection list on the basis of the preferences fixed by the Corporation. Those preferences are 1 to 7 as per para 2 of the Circular. However, on reading the above quoted portion, it becomes clear that the matters of the 5 categories mentioned in this para would not go before the Selection Committee. It means that in respect of these 5 categories the Selection Committee would not be required to hold examination or to call such candidates for interview for selection. It means the role of the Selection Committee was completely taken away in respect of these 5 categories. If the categories are carefully seen, it will become clear that no such examination or interview would be required in case of the staff members who were retrenched or who were required to be re-appointed as per orders of the Court or who were to he given alternate employment after being medically declared unfit for particular post like Driver and who were to be appointed on compassionate grounds. Same benefit was given to the apprentices who had completed their apprenticeship satisfactorily. The case of the apprentice falls in 5th category in this group. In view of the fact that the apprentices, who have completed their apprenticeship satisfactorily arc clubbed together with 4 other categories wherein such examination could not he necessary, it must be held that the Corporation did not feel it necessary to have examination and selection of apprentices who had completed their apprenticeship satisfactorily and as a result of this, such apprentices would be directly absorbed in the service without subjecting them to the examination. 13. None of these Circulars are statutory provisions, From time to time. the Corporation has issued the Circulars as guideline. The earlier Circular of 1977. which is not produced before the Court, was superseded by the Circular dated 30.5.1979. It appears that impliedly the Circular dated 30.5.1979 as well as the Circular dated 7.5.1981 were also superseded by the Circular dated 31.3.1984 and. Therefore, the Circular or 1979 and 1981 would not be applicable to the respondent who had admittedly completed his apprenticeship satisfactorily and. therefore, he was entitled to be absorbed as Clerk without being subjected to the examination. 14. The Industrial Court placed reliance upon the L.T.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. U. P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others reported in AIR 1995 SC 1115 while passing the order in favour of the respondent. In the said judgment. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the object and purpose of the Apprentice Act. 1961 in the light of the provisions of the Constitution. Their Lordships observed as follows :- "9. The have said so as reference to that Circular shows that all it has done is to lay down the procedure for the selection of the apprentices, which did not require the apprentices to undergo any written examination for selection and their routing through employment exchange was done away with. Something was said about the age also. No promise of employment can he read in this Circular which is of 21st December. 1977. We would say the same about the Memo of the Directorate of Training and Employment or the State of LT.P. dated 21st September. 1977 m. it falls short of any promise of employment. because what it says is that full efforts should be made to provide the trainees with service In this Memo, what has been stated in para 2 of the Government of India' s letter dated 31.8.1978 had been quoted ill which it was mentioned that the scheme of training had been introduced to promote chances of employment of educated employed persons; and that if employer would not provide employment to the qualified apprentices the same would amount to destruction of developed human resources. It is because of this that the Government of India expressed the desire that "other things being equal trained apprentices should be given preference in case of employment." "10. It is because of this that the Government of India expressed the desire that "other things being equal trained apprentices should be given preference in case of employment." "10. For a promise to be enforceable, the same has, however, to be clear and unequivocal. We do not read any such promise in the aforesaid three documents and we, therefore, hold that at the call of promissory estoppel, the direction in question could not have been given by the High Court. But then, we are left in no doubt that the Government of India did desire that preference should be given to the trained apprentices and it is because of this that the State Government stated in its letter No.735/38-6-16(T)-79 dt. 12-11 -79 that where such apprentices are available, direct recruitment should not to be made. Indeed, the Government of India in its letter dated 233-1983 even desired reservation of 50 per cent vacancies for apprentice trainees. 11. The aforesaid being the position, it would not be just and proper to go merely by what has been stated in Section 22(1) of the Act, or for that matter, in the model contract form. What is indeed required is to see that the nation gets the benefit of time, money and energy spent on the trainees, which would be so when they are employed in preference to non-trained direct recruits. This would also meet the legitimate expectations of the trainees." "12. In the background of what has been noted above, we state that the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful completion of their training : "1)Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits, 2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India Vs. Hargopal. AIR SC 1227(sic), would permit this. 3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same would be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard. if any, in the concerned service rule. If the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training would be given. 4) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained year wise. if any, in the concerned service rule. If the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training would be given. 4) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained year wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to those who are senior". " 15. In view of the provisions of the Apprentice Act, the objects and purposes behind the same and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court as above, it becomes clear that the Apprentice should be given priority in appointment after completion of the apprenticeship satisfactorily and this becomes also clear from the Circular dated 20.2. 1984. It appears that the Officers of the petitioner who were responsible for giving appointment to the respondent did not follow this Circular of 1984 correctly and pushed the respondent to litigation. Taking into consideration the directions given by the Corporation in 1984 and non-compliance of the same by its own officers in respect of the respondent. I am in agreement with the Industrial Court that the complaint could not be thrown away as barred by limitation for the same reason bar of age should also not come in the way. 16. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position, particularly the Circular dated 20.2.1984 and failure of the petitioner to produce the Circular of 1977 which was holding the field when the respondent completed his apprenticeship, I find that the Industrial Court was right in passing the impugned order. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition stands dismissed. The petitioner shall absorb the respondent in service within 60 days from this order. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.