Holding

The communications do not amount to an unequivocal, enforceable promise; the High Court’s direction to appoint the apprentices is unsustainable and is set aside.

Summary

In the 1970s the Calcutta Port Trust recruited trained apprentices and the wards of employees who died in harness in a 1:1 ratio in its Mechanical Engineering department. The practice was later discontinued and only compassionate appointments for the wards continued. Three hundred and twenty‑one trained apprentices filed writ petitions seeking appointment in the same ratio, relying on government circulars, a 1985 letter and a 1986 letter of the Trust. The Calcutta High Court directed the Trust to restore the 1:1 quota, interpreting those communications as an enforceable promise. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the letters and circulars did not contain a clear, unequivocal and unqualified promise that could be enforced after a quarter of a century, nor was there any statutory provision or agreement creating such a right. Consequently, the High Court’s direction to appoint the apprentices was unsustainable and was set aside. The appeal was allowed, dismissing the writ petitions.

Issues considered

What is the legal effect of the 1985 and 1986 communications of the Port Trust regarding recruitment of ex‑trade apprentices?
Do the communications constitute an enforceable promise or a basis for invoking promissory estoppel?
Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the Trust to appoint the 321 apprentices in a 1:1 ratio?

Subjects

labour lawrecruitmentapprenticeshippromissory estoppelpublic sector employmentcompassionate appointmentsstatutory rights

Judgment

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 651

-; BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA & A
~ ORS.
v.
AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6754 of 2008)
B
NOVEMBER 25, 2008
,l [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]
y
Labour Laws - Recruitment - Trained apprentices and
wards of employees dying in harness - Recruitment of, in the c
ratio of 1:1 by Port Trust- However, practice discontinued -
Challenge to, by 321 trained apprentices - Directions by High
Court to give employment to ex-trade apprentices along with
died-in-harness category and restore the balance in quota -
Reliance placed on Government Guidelines, circulars and b
communications issued - Upheld by Division Bench -
Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable - Communication
does not constitutes an unequivocal, unqualified and
~ enforceable promise nor lays down mode of recruitment on
permanent basis or creates any rights in favour of trained E
apprentices - Ex-trade apprentices were appointed at one
time in equal numbers to those appointed under
compassionate appointments scheme but the practice was not
based on any statutory provision or agreement - There is no
comprehensible connection between the two groups nor any
F
.,. rational basis for parity between the two groups - Thus, orders
of High. Court set aside.
"--
In 1970s, the Calcutta Port Trust used to recruit
trained apprentices and wards of employees dying in
harness in the Mechanical Engineering Department in the c3
ratio of 1:1. They discontinued the said old practice and
l. appointed only the wards of employees dying in harness
"'-y
on compassionate grounds. Respondent viz. 321 trained
apprentices filed writ petition seeking their appointment

.. 651 H

'(
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

-A equal ·in number to those appointed on compassionate
basis during past many years. On direction by the High
Court, the Chairman of the _Port Trust heard the trained
apprentices and rejected their claim. Trained apprentices
raised demands. The Chairman found that the post of
s Fireman in the Marine Department were never filled up by
transfer of unskilled labours from the mechanical
department; that the Trust was passing through great
financial stringency and was burdened with surplus
workforce; that there was already a list of about 1200
c persons, dependents of the employees who died in
harness; and that a list of trained apprentice·s was
already maintained by the Trust for giving preference to
them in the matter of direct recruitment to the posts
matching their skills and qualifications, thus, there was
no occasion to maintain any other list of trained
0
apprentices for filling up only the vacancies in the Marine
department and if any occasion arose to fill up posts by
direct recruitment, the passed out trade ·apprentices
would also be considered. Trained apprentices
challenged the order of the Chairman. High Court allowed
E the writ petition. It relied on the Government guidelines,
circulars and the communications issued by the Port
Trust and directed the Port Trust to consirfcr the cases
of the respondent for giving them employm~nt as trained
apprentice along with candidates from die,d in harness
F category, in the ratio 1:1 and restore the balance in quota
meant for two categories. Port Trust filed appeal which x
was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: 1.1. It cannot be accepted that the letter of July
30, 1986 by the Secretary of the Trust to the Joint General
Secrete1ry, Calcutta Port Shramik Union with regard to
lifting the ban on recruitment of ex-trade apprentices and
absorption of trade apprentices on its own or read along
H
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA & 653
ORS. v. AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS.

with the earlier communication dated January 4, 1985 A .
from the Labour Advisor & Industrial Relations Officer of
the Port Trust to the Joint General Secretary of the
Calcutta Port Shramik Union with regard to recruitment
of the ex-trade apprentices, constitutes an unqualified,
enforceable promise or lays down a mode of recruitment B
on a permanent basis or creates any rights in favour of
the trained apprentices. It is difficult to read in the
communication of January.4, 1985 any clear, unequivocal
and unqualified promise that may be enforceable after a
quarter of century under vastly different conditions. The, c
recruitments from the two categories cannot be linked-
up and made contingent on each other. [Paras 21, 22 and1
23] [666-B-C; 667-D]
1.3. The letter does not answer as to how could the.
High Court give direction for appointment of over three. D
hundred trained apprentices regardless of the vacancy
position and the other relevant considerations. The
submrssion that the vital difference between the two was .
that the order of the Chairman, Port Trust sought to do
away with the parity between the two groups in the matter E
of recruitment; and that the respondents' main claim was
to adhere to and restore the parity between the ex-trade ·
apprentices and those covered by the scheme of
compassionate appointments in the matter of recruitment
cannot be accepted. The ex-trade apprentices were at ' F
one time appointed in equal numbers to those appointed
under the compassionate appointments scheme but. the
practice was not on the basis of any statutory provision
or any agreement between the Trust and the workmen.
There is no rational basis for such parity between the two . , G
groups. It might have served the interests of a certain
group in the past and it may appear to the present
respondents as a handy bargaining point but in the long
term it will be fair neither to ex-trade apprentices nor to
those coming under the scheme of compassionate . H

-I
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 16 S.C.R.

A appointments. There is rto comprehensible connect'ion
between the two groups nor is there any ration@! basis
for parity between the two in the matter of recruitment.
On, consideration of the materials on record and the
submissions, the orders passed by High Court are
B unsustainable. Thus, orders of High Court are set aside.
[Para 24 and 25] (667-E-H; 668-A-B]

.1.3. The number of appointments has gone down --..::
very low, no uniform policy of recruitment is discernible.
C The Trust shoul_d frame clear policies of recruitment from
these categories and give them due publicity to avoid any
scope of abuse and unfair labour practice. [Para 26] (638-
E-F]

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. vs. U.P.
D Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh & Ors. (1995)
2 sec 1, Relied on.
Case Law Reference:
j.
(1995) 2 sec 1 Relied on Para 21
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6754 of 2008.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.10.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature at Calcutta in M.A.T. No. 2601 of 2004.
F
G.E. Vahanvati, S.G., M.N. Krishnamani, Kalyan x
Bandopadyay, AV. Rangam, Buddya A. Rangadhan, Upendra
Roy, D. Bharat Kumar, Anand, Azim H. Laskar, Abijit Sengupta,
Rana Mukherjee, Abhijit Sengupta and M. lndrani for the
G appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ;.
Y'
AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties

H 2. Leave granted

j
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA & 655
---{ ORS. v. AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

.. /

3. In times of fast shrinking employment opportunities, A
trade apprentices who have completed their training staked
their claim on an old practice, long discontinued, under which
the Calcutta Port Trust in the port's Mechanical Engineering
department used to make recruitment of trained apprentices'
and wards of employees dying in harness in the ratio of 1: 1. B
;i
4. Three hundred and twenty one trained apprentices
)"
(respondents before this Court; hereinafter referred to as 'the
trained apprentices') joined together and approached the
Calcutta High Court in WP No. 21877(W)/99. They made the
grievance that in disregard of the practice earlier followed, the
c
Calcutta Port Trust was giving appointments only on
compassionate grounds to the wards of their employees dying
in harness and had completely stopped the recruitment of
trained apprentices. They sought appropriate directions from
the High Court asking the Calcutta Port Trust to app,oint trained D
apprentices equal in number to those appointed on
,) compassionate basis during the past many years so as to
~ restore the 1:1 ratio between the two groups. At that stage the
High Court did not pass any positive order in the matter but
disposed of the writ petition directing the Chairman, Calcutta E
Port Trust to examine the claim of the trained apprentices and
to dispose of their representation after giving them an
opportunity of hearing.

5. In compliance with the order of the Court the Chairman, F
~
Calcutta Port Trust heard representatives of the trained
"I-,
apprentices and examined their claim. He turned down the
claim by a reasoned order dated July 5, 2000. From the order
it appears that the trained apprentices raised three grievances/
demands before him. One, the Calcutta Port Trust should not
G
fill up the vacancies of Firemen in the Marine department by
... transfer of unskilled labourers from the Mechanical Engineering
y
department. Two, the Port Trust should maintain a list of trade
apprentices who completed the apprenticeship course in the
Port for consideration for employment against future vacancies
H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A and three, the vacancies of unskilled labourers in the -f
Me~hanicatEngineering departm~nt should be filled up by the ,
dependents of employees dying in h.arness and trained
apprentices in 1: 1 ratio. In regard to the third demand the trained
apprentices further claimed that during the last 20 years the
B ratio was not properly maintained and in order to restore it
trained apprentices should be appointed in equal numbers to ~
those appuinted on compassionate basis. The Chairman noted
'that the posts-of Fireman in the Marine department were never -...(

filled up by transfer of unskilled labourers from the Mechanical
c Engineering department; hence, the first grievance/ demand of
the trained apprentices was quite unfounded. As regards
maintenance of list of tra'Cle apprentices for appointment as
Firemen the Chairman noted that the Trust was passing through
great financial stringency and was burdened with surplus
workforce. As a result, the Trust was not in a position to take
D
in any more unskilled labourers or to make appointments on
other posts. He further noted that there was already a list of
about 1200 persons, dependents of the· employees who died
4.

in harness. Similarly, a list oftrained apprentices was already ~

maintained by the Trust in light of the Central Government
E instructinns and the decisions of this Court for giving preference
to them in the matter of direct recruitment to the post(s),
matching their skills and qualifications. As per the instructions,
being followed by the Trust, a trained apprentice is not required
to get his name sponsored by aoy employment exchange and
F he is also given relaxation of age bar to the extent of the period
of training. Thus there was no occasion to maintain any other x
list of trained apprentices for filling up only the vacancies in the
Marine department. In conclusion the Chairman passed the
following order:
G
"Notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove it is
f
reiterated that if any occasion arises to fill up the posts of )(
USL under Mechanical Engineering department by Direct
recruitment the passed out Trade apprentices may also be
considered."
H
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA & 657
ORS. v. AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
t 6. The trained apprentices once again went to the High A
Court in WP No. 9259 (W) of 2001 re-agitating their claims and
challenging the order of the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust.

7. This time a learned Single Judge of the Court allowed
the writ petition by judgment and order dated June 11, 2004,
13
giving the following directions to the Calcutta Port Trust:
,)

"For the above reasons the writ petition should succeed.
~
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition. The order impugned
is hereby set aside. The respondents are hereby directed
to consider the cases of the petitioners in accordance with c
the decision,s that the respondent Port Trust had taken for
giving employment to its trade apprentice in the ratio 1:1
to be maintained with the candidates from the died in
harness category. Since the respondent Port Trust has
already given employment to the died in harness category D
candidates in excess of the quota available to such
) category, the respondents are hereby directed to take
).. immediate steps for rectifying the situation and restoring
the balance in the quota meant for the two categories. For
implementing this order the respondent shall immediately E
-4
frame a scheme on the basis of such scheme they shall
consider the case of the petitioners. The scheme shall be
prepared and the names of the petitioners shall be placed
in an appropriate panel within a period of four weeks from
'· ~
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order F
by them. After preparing the scheme and the panel, the
::4
respondents shall consider the cases of the petitioners
according to the scheme and panel against the available
vacancies, in terms of the government order issued in the
year 1983 and their own decisions as quoted
G
hereinbefore."
"'
'f
8. Against the judgment of the single Judge the appellant,
Calcutta Pc11 Trust preferred an appeal (MAT 2601 of 2004)
before the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal was
dismissed by judgment and order dated May 10, 2007 and H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A confirming the order of the single judge the Division Bench
made the following observations and directions:

"In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered
view that the learned Single Judge has rightly issued
appropriate directions for considering the cases of the writ
B
petitioners and giving employment as ex-trade I

Apprentices along with the died-in-harness category F
i
candidates .in the ratio of 1:1 in the matter of giving
employment in the Kolkata Port trust pursuant to the
promise given on behalf of the said appellants and as
c mentioned in the written communication of Labour Advisor
dated 4th January, .1985 and further considering the '
guidelines issued by the Government of India and r
mentioned in the circular dated 21st April, 1983."

D 9. The appellant has brought the matter in appeal to this
Court.

10. Mr. G. Vahahvati, learned Solicitor General appearing
on behalf of the appellants submhted that the orders passed
E by the High Court were quite bad and illegal. The High Court ;.-
t-
clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the appellant to give
employment to three hundred and twentyone wdt petitioners t
without any consideration of the appellant's requirements, its l
financial position and other similar issues. Moreover, the High
Court arrived at its conclusions on a complete misreading and
F misinterpretation of the relevant government guidelines and
circulars and communications issued by the Port Trust. The
Solicitor General emphasised that there was never ever any
promise made by the appellant to absorb the trained
apprentices in employment and the High Court completely
G misread the communication of the Labour Advisor of the Trust
dated January 4, 1985 and the guidelines contained in the
circular dated April 21, 1983 issued by the Government of India.

11. The Solicitor General stated that in the 1970s the
H Calcutta Port Trust indeed followed the practice of making
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTIA & 659
ORS. v. AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
~
recruitment of unskilled labour in the Mechanical Engineering A
department of the Port from amongst the dependents of
employees dying in harness and trained apprentices in the ratio
of 1:1. He, however, made it clear that the practice was based
neither on any statutory provision nor on agreement(s) of any
_J
binding nature; it was followed by the Trust unilaterally having B
~ ,.) regard to the circumstances obtaining at that time. He further
clarified that this practice was confined only to the Mechanical
r
Engineering department while the other departments had their
own recruitment policy, depending upon their respective
requirements. He then took us, one by one to the circulars, c
decisions, communications etc. relied upon by the High Court
for making the impugned directions.

12. First in the series is a circular bearing no. 0.0. DECT-
1-83/AP dated April 21, 1983 issued by the Ministr/ of Labour
and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour), Government of India. D
--; By this circular all the ministries were urged to endeavour to
~
ensure that 50% of the total semi- skilled and skilled categories
~
of jobs in the establishment under them should be filled by direct
recruitment. Further, that 50% of the vacancies available for
direct recruitment should be filled by trained apprentices and E
~ first preference be given to apprentices completing the training
course under that establishment. Para. 2.2 of the circular read
as follows:

., "50% of the direct recruitment vacancies may be filled by F
.,.__ trained apprentices first preference being given to the
apprentices trained by the said establishment and
thereafter to those trained by other establishment."

13. Next is a letter of January 4, 1985 from the Labour
Adviser & Industrial Relations Officer of the Port Trust to the G
'1
Joint General Secretary of the Calcutta Port Shramik Union. The
letter is on the subject of recruitment of the ex-trade apprentices
and refers to some' discussion held in that regard. As this letter
is the mainstay of the High Court judgments it is reproduced
below in full. H
.
"
,.._
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R. (

A "Subject: Recruitment of Ex-Trade Apprentices -f

bear Sir;
"
-Kindly recall the discussion held in Chairman's room
on 3.1.1985 on the above subject.
B
Ex-Trade Apprentices were being recruited along
'·
with the died in harness candidates in the ratio of 1:1.- This
is now been stopped in view of the ban imposed by ..,
Government on direct recruitment. Ex-Trade Apprentices
c will be .recruited again as and when the ban is lift~d and
their quota will be restored."

It is this letter that is mainly relied on by the High Court to hold
that the Port Trust was bound by its promise to recruit the
trained apprentices in the same ratio as dependents of
..'
D employees dying in harness. The Solicitor General submitted
that it is quite unreasonable to read this letter as an unqualified
promise of recruitment of trained apprentices in all future times. ...
The letter simply said the ex-trade apprentices would be +
recruited and their quota would be r,estored again as and when
E the ban on direct recruitment was lifted. He pointed out that in
the order of the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust that came under
challenge before the High Court it was likewise stated that the
Trust was n6t in a position to provide employment opportunity
to the trained apprentices on account of the twin problems of
F actuate' financial distress and surplus workforce. but as and ,.
when the need arises to induct unskilled labour in the --'f
Mechanical Engineering department the trained apprentices
would also be considered for recruitment. There is thus no i-
change in the stand of the Trust and there is no question of II
G enforcement of any unconditional promise made by the Trust.
~
i,..
14. The Solicitor General referred to the decision in U.P. y
~

State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs. U.P. Parivahan
Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh & Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 1
and submitted that on similar facts this Court held that the High
H
~
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA & 661
ORS. v. AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

~ Court was wrong in giving direction to give employment to the A
trainees. In regard to enforcement of promise the Court, in·
paragraph 10 of the decision, ob.served and held as follows:

"For a promise to be enforceable, the same has,
however, to be clear and unequivocal. We do not read 8
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 C
that the State Government stated in its letter No. 735/38-
6~ 16(T)-79 dated 12-11-1979 that where such apprentices
are available, direct recruitment should not be made.
Indeed, the Government of lhdia in its letter dated 23-3-
1983 even desired reservation of 50 per cent vacancies D
for apprentice trainees."

(emphasis added)

15. Proceeding then to examine the rights of the ex-trade E
apprentices under .the Apprentices Act, 1961 the Court, in
paragraph 12 of the decision, laid down as follows:

"In the background of what has been noted above, we state
that thefollowing would be kept in mind while dealing with
" the claim of trainees to get employment after successful F
,,._ completion Qf 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 G
name sponsored by any employment exchange.
The decision of this Court in Union of India vs. N.
Hargopal would permit this. ·)

(3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the H
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA & 663
ORS. v. AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

they have been trained or in other Government/Private A
sector establishment. I shall be grateful if suitable steps
are initiated by your Ministry to:

(a) fill up the seats located by engaging apprentices
under the Apprenticeship Act for utilization of B
existing training facilities to the fullest extent;
r'
(b) improve the quality of training by closer monitoring
~ of th.e scheme at the scheme at the shop floor level;
and
c
(c) ensµr~ that preference is given to passed out
£3pprentices for recruitment in regular jobs
matching their skills and qualifications.

(emphasis added)
D
The Solicitor General submitted that the policy of the
,, Government of India is to give preference to the passed out
apprentices for recruitment in regular jobs matching their skills
~
and qualification.
E
18. The Solicitor General reiterated that in the
communication of the Legal Advisor of the Trust dated January
4, 1985 there was no promise to recruit the trained apprentices.
He further submitted that in any event after the legal position
was made absolutely clear by the decision in U.P. State Road
F
~ Transport Corporation. and following the decision the

- Government of India had also modified its policy regarding
recruitment of trained apprentices it was completely
unreasonable to make that letter the basis for the direction to
appoint three hundred and twenty one trained apprentic~s. He
further stated that even though the decision in U.P. State Road
G
~
Transport Corporation was brought to the notice of the High
Court it unfortunately persisted in reading the letter dated
" January 4, 1985 as making the promise for appointment of
trained apprentices.
H
664 SUPREME CO!.JRT REPORTS [2008) 16 S.C.R.

A 19. As regards the appointment ©f trained apprentices in -1
equal number to appointments on compassionete basis the
Solicitor General submitted that was a practice followed by the
Trust at one point of time long ago when there was adequate
employment potential in.the port. After more than 25 years and
s under vastly changed conditions, both in law and in the
circumstances concerning the Calcutta Port, it was no longer
possible to follow the practice and to link up the .appointments
from two entirely different categories. The Solicitor General
stated that in the past thirty years though ex-trade apprentices
c were appointed in substantial numbers, depending on the
exigencies in certain years, the ratio of 1:1 between the two
groups was never maintained. In recent years of course,
employment opportunity for every group had practically dried
up. In this regard he brought to our notice the following table
giving the break-up of appointments made as unskilled labourer
0
in the ry1echanical Engineering department from different
sources from 1979 till 2000, when this case started.
Year of By died By Ex- By By ST By Total '
Recrui- -in- Trade Casual candi- sports
E tment harness App re- work- dates person
candi- ntices ers
dates
. 1979 54 98 140 5 - ){
297
1980 84 82 1 x x 167
F.
1981 31 x x x x 31 )

1982 71 54 14 x 2 141
1983 6 23 1 x x 30
G 1984 45 9 x x x 54

I-TOTAL 291 266. 156 5 2 720

1985 110 62 1 x x 173

H 1986 37 39 x x x 76
,
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA & 665
ORS. v. AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
....
1987 1· x x x x 1 A

x x x
,..,

1988 ·14 4 18
1989 11 5 x 20 x 36
1990 x 2 )( x 1 3 B
..
II-TOTAL f73 112 1 20 1 307
1991 x 3 x x 3 6
1992 x" x x x x x
c
1993 x x x x x x
1994 x x x x x x
Ill-TOTAL x 3 x x 3 6
1995 25 x x x x 25 D

(
1996 4 x x x x 4
1997 9 x x x x 9
1998 2 1 21 x x 24 E
1999 1 x 8 x x 9
2000 1 X· x x x 1
IV-TOTAL 42 1 29 x x 72
F
TOTAL 506 382 186 25 6 1105
OF I, II, Ill
&IV

20. The Table clearly shows the number of appointments
from different groups tapering off. In the ten years from 1991 G
to 2000, 42 persons were employed on compassionate basis
y
and only 4 persons from amongst the ex-trade apprentices. The
Solicitor General stated that appointments on compassionate
basis were made only in dire cases that had the potential of
causing labour unrest creating major problems. He submitted H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R. ....
/

I

A that in present conditions it is not possible to link-up the
recruitments from the two categories and the High Court was
i ~
I
r'
in error in giving the impugned direction.
'
'
21. We find much substance in the submissions made by
the Solicitor General. Like the case of U.P. State Road
B
Transport Corporation we find it difficult to read in ~he
communication of January 4, 1985 any clear, unequivocal and '•
unqualified promise that may be enforceable after a quarter of
century under vastly different conditions. We are also in
agreement that the recruitments from the two categories cannot """'
c be linked-up and made contingent on each other.

22. Mr. Krishnamani, learneo counsel appearing for the
.
respondents, the trained apprentices supported the judgments
of the High Court, He submitted tha.t the High Court rightly held
D that the letter of the Legal Advisor dated January 4, 1985 made
the promise of recruitment of the trained apprentices and
restoration of the ratio between the two groups as and when
the ban on direct recruitment irnposed by the Central
Government was lifted. Mr. Krishnamani further submitted that +
E the ban. on recruitment of ex-trade apprentices was lifted by
letter dated July 30, 1986 addressed by the Secretary of the
Trust to the Joint General Secretary, Calcutta Port Shramik
Union and with the lifting of the ban the promise made in the
earlier letter of January 4, 1985 became enforceable and
F binding. The letter of July 30, 1986 referred to by Mr.
Krishnamani is as follows: ~

-f
"Dear Sir,

"Subject: Absorption of the Trade Apprentices under
G the S.R.C. (ex.C.H.E.'s Deptt.)

Reference your letter .No.~C/8/645 dated the 16th June,
1986. y

2. The case has been considered by the Chairman. It has
H
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA & 667
ORS. v. AVIJIT KUMAR RAY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

been decided to resume recruitment or ex-Trade A
Apprentices, as per their quota against the available
vacancies of U.S.L. subject to work requirement a_nd on
observance of SC/ST reservation orders. The General
Manager (Ship Repair Complex) is being suitably advised
in the matter." B
.,, This letter is of July 30, 1986 and a reference to the table giving
year-wise appointments would show that in the year 1986, 39
/>Ir- ex-trade apprentices were appointed against 37 persons
appointed under the scheme of compassionate appointments.
Thus the Trust did exactly what was stated in this letter.
c
23. We are unable to accept that this letter on its own or
read along with the earlier communication dated January 4,
1985 constitutes an unqualified, enforceable promise or lays
down a mode of recruitment on a permanent basis or creates D
any rights in favour of the trained apprentices.

,I 24. Moreover, the letter does not answer the main question
-\. in the case, i.e., how could the High Court give direction for
appointment of over three hundred trained apprentices
E
regardless of the 'lacancy position and the other relevant
considerations. Confronted with the question Mr. Krishnamani
submitted that the order of the High Court should not be
understood to mean that all the respondents must be appointed
forthwith. The High Court asked the Trust to evolve a scheme
., for their absorption in a phased manner. When pointed out that F
if the directions of the High Court are to be understood in the
+- way suggested by him then their will not be much difference
between the High Court order and the order passed by the
Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust, Mr. Krishnamani submitted the
vital difference between the two was that the order of the G
Chairman, Port Trust sought to do away with the parity between
.
~
the two groups in the matter of recruitment. He further submitted
that the respondents' main claim was to adhere to and restore
the parity between the ex-trade apprentices and those covered
by the scheme of compassionate appointments in the matter H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 16 S.C.R.

A of recruitment. We are entirely unable·to accept the claim of -f
the respondents. As stated by the Solicitor General the ex-trade
apprentices were at one time appointed in equal numbers to
those appointed under the compassionate appointments
scheme but the practice was not on the basis of any statutory
B provision or any agreement between the Trust and the workmen.
We are equally unable to see any rational basis for such parity
-,..
between the two groups. It might have served t~e interests of
a certain .group in the past and it may appear- to the present -!._
respondents as a handy bargaining point but. in the long term
c it will be fair neither to ex-trade apprentice$ nor to those coming
under the scheme of compassionate appointment~. There is
no comprehensible connection between the two groups nor is
there any rational basis for parity between the two in the matter ~

of recruitment.
D 25. On a consideration of the materials on record and the
rival submissions we are of the view that the orders passed by •
High Court are plainly unsustainable. We accordingly set aside \.

the orders of the High Court and dismiss the writ petitions. ~

E 26. Before parting with the records of the case we may,
however, observe that though the number of appointments has
gone down very low, no uniform policy of recruitment is
discernible. For example three trained apprentices were
recruited in 1993 and one in 1998. It is not clear under what
F policy those recruitments were made or for that matter what ~
policy the Trust is following in the matter of compassionate t

appointments. The Trust shoutd frame clear policies of -+
recruitment from these categories and give them due publicity
to avoid any scope of abuse and unfair labour pra1:tice.
G 27. In the result, the appeal is allowed subject to the >
aforesaid observations and directions. There shall be no order
as to costs. y
·-
N.J. Appeal allowed.,