1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.--We propose to dispose of the above noted 13 petitions by a consolidated order as the points of law involved therein are common. Petition No, 1672/87 is filed by 17 persons jointly to challenge the order dated 4-10-1987 passed by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeals of respondent No, 2 (M/s. Zeal Pak Cement Factory) holding reinstatement of petitioners in service ordered by the VIth Labour Court, Hyderabad, as illegal.
2. Petitions Nos. 2 to 13 of 1989 are filed M/s. Zeal Pak Cement Factory, to challenge the order dated 7- 12-1988 passe Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, allowing appeals of 12 workmen, holding' the termination of their, services by the petitioner was not legal. For the sake of convenience, we will hereinafter refer the 17 petitioners in Petition No, 1672 of 1987 as "the petitioners" respondent No, 2 in Petition No,1672 of 1987 and petitioner in Petitions Nos. 2 to 13 of 1989 as "Zeal Pak" and 12 respondents/workmen in petitions Nos. 2 to 13 of 1989 as "respondent No, 1" only respectively. The circumstances under which the above mentioned petitions are filed may be stated as follows:- ' The petitioners were appointed as apprentice-mechanics by Zeal Pak in or about 1st January, 1983. Under the apprenticeship agreement executed between the petitioners and Zeal Pak the apprenticeship period was fixed as 3 years which expired on 31-12-1985. It is alleged by the petitioners that on completion of their apprenticeship period they continued to work with Zeal Pak on permanent job but they were not issued any appointment letter. They further alleged that on 30th September, 1986 Zeal Pak terminated their services without any cause. Zeal Pak on the other hand contended that 3 years' apprenticeship period of petitioners fixed under the contract was extended for a further period of 9 months with the approval of competent authority and as such the apprenticeship period of the petitioners expired on 30th September, 1986,. And accordingly termination letters dated 30th September, 1986 were served on the petitioners by Zeak Pak on expiry of their above apprenticeship period. The petitioners challenged the letter dated 30th September, 1986, issued to them by Zeal Pak terminating their employment, before 6th Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad, under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Which were allowed. The Labour Court held that the evidence on record did not show that after expiry of the initial period of 3 years' apprenticeship, fixed under the contract, the same was extended with the approval of any competent authority. It was further held that the alleged approval of competent authority relied by Zeal Pak was not legal as the same was accorded after about 6 months of the expiry of the period of apprenticeship fixed under the contract, on an application of Zeal Pak, made after about 2 months of the expiry of the period of apprenticeship. The Labour Court also found that Zeal Pak never informed the petitioners after expiry of their initial period of 3 years' apprenticeship, that their apprenticeship period was extended for 9 months and that the record of Zeal Pak produced in' the case did not show that after completion of 3 years' period of apprenticeship fixed in the contract, the petitioners were continued to be treated as apprentices. On appeal by Zeal Pak the above order of Labour Court was reversed by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal took the view that there was no legal requirement for communication of the extension in the period of apprenticeship to the petitioners and it was sufficient if it was shown that the competent authority had approved the extension. The Appellate Tribunal also took into consideration the admission made by one of the petitioners in his evidence that the petitioners were not allotted any residential accommodation and other facilities by Zeal Pak which are normally allowed to a regular employee, and accordingly, it was concluded that in these circumstances after termination of - initial 3 years period of apprenticeship in the absence of a fresh appointment letter, the petitioners continued to serve Zeal Pak as apprentices and as there was no legal obligation on Zeal Pak to employ the petitioners in the establishment on completion of their apprenticeship period, their termination of service after completion of apprenticeship period was legally valid.
3. ' In Petitions Nos. 2 to 13 of 1989 the initial period of 3 years' apprenticeship of respondent No, 1, mentioned in the contract of apprenticeship, expired on or about 15th November, 1986. This period was twice extended by Zeal Pak, once upto 15th February, 1987 and then upto 15th May, 1987.
4. Respondent No, 1 in the above cases, like the petitioners in Petition No, 1672 of 1987 also took the plea that after expiry of their initial period of 3 years' apprenticeship they were not informed about any extension in the period of their apprenticeship and as such they became permanent employees of Zeal Pak on expiry of 3 years' apprenticeship period. They, accordingly, challenged their termination of service by Zeal Pak in May, 1987, before the VI Labour Court at Hyderabad. Zeal Pak on the other hand pleaded in these cases that on expiry of 3 years' apprenticeship period on 15-11-1986, the period of apprenticeship of respondent No, 1 was first extended upto 15th February, 1987 on 15-11-1986 and, thereafter, it was further extended on 7-2-1987 upto 15-5-1987. It was also pleaded that the above two extensions made by Zeal Pak in the apprenticeship period of respondent No, 1 were duly approved by the competent authority and as such respondent No, 1 were served with termination letters in May, 1987 on completion of their respective period of apprenticeship. The Labour Court after recording evidence of the parties and hearing them reached the conclusion that respondent No, 1 continued to serve the petitioners as apprentice after expiry of their initial three years' period and that they were fully aware of the same. The Labour Court also reached the conclusion that the above two extensions in the apprenticeship period of respondent No, 1 were made with the approval of competent authority and as such the letter dated 15th May, 1987, served on respondent No, 1, terminating their apprenticeship was legal and valid.
5. The Labour Court, accordingly, dismissed the grievance petitions filed by respondent No,
1. Against the order of Labour Court respondent No, 1 filed separate appeals before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi, which were allowed by the impugned order. The Sindh Labour Appellate Court this time took the view, that in view of Rules 18 and 19 of the Apprenticeship Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called as "the Rules" only) the extension in the period of apprenticeship of respondent No, 1 should have been in writing and with the prior approval of competent authority and as there was no such subsequent agreement incorporating the extension in the period of apprenticeship beyond three years, the respondent No,1 on expiry of their initial apprenticeship period of three years became permanent employees of Zeal Pak. The Labour Appellate Tribunal further held that as it was admitted by the witness of Zeal Pak in his evidence that the services of respondent No, 1 were terminated on account of their unsatisfactory work, the action was not sustainable in law. The order of the Labour Court was accordingly reversed and respondent No, 1 were directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits. Zeal Pak has challenged the above order of Labour Appellate Tribunal in the above petitions.
6. ' From the above narration of facts it would appear that the successive Presiding Officers of Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal have taken different view while interpreting the Rules. Mr. Ali Amjid, learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No, 1 contended before us that as the petitioners and respondent No, 1 were not served with the termination letter on the expiry of their initial period of apprenticeship of three years and were allowed to continue in the job without any condition, they shall be deemed to have become the permanent workmen in the establishment from the date of completion of their apprenticeship period of 3 years. It is, accordingly, contended, by the learned counsel that termination of the services of petitioners and respondent No, 1, much after expiry of the period of their apprenticeship, by Zeal Pak was not legally sustainable and as such they were rightly reinstated in service with full benefits. Learned counsel in support of his above contention relied on the case of M/s. Sargodha Vegetable Ghee Mills v. Muhammad Mukhtar Khan 1988 PLC 295. Mr. Ali Amjad further contended that it is an admitted position in the above cases that the initial period of apprenticeship fixed under the contract of apprenticeship, executed between the parties, was three years, and, therefore, any alteration or amendment in the terms and conditions of the said contract, subsequent to its execution, required prior approval of the competent authority under the Rules. It is accordingly urged by the learned counsel that the alleged approval of competent authority relied by Zeal Pak in the above cases which purportedly approved the extensions in the apprenticeship period of petitioners and respondent No, 1 had no legal effect.
7. ' Mr. Talmiz Burney, learned counsel for Zeal Pak on the other hand contended that there is no requirement under rule 19 of the Rules for obtaining prior approval of the competent authority for extension in the apprenticeship period and as such the subsequent approval given by the competent authority for extension in the period of apprenticeship of petitioners and respondent No, 1 was valid. It is, accordingly, contended by Mr. Talmiz Burney, that the termination of the apprenticeship of petitioners and respondent No, 1 after completion of their extended apprenticeship period was fully justified and valid in law and no exception could be taken to it.
8. ' It is an admitted position in the above cases that the petitioners and respondent No, 1 were initially appointed as apprentices by Zeal Pak for a period of 3 years. Zeal Pak claimed that the period of apprenticeship was extended in all the cases with the approval of competent authority while petitioners and respondent No, 1 claimed that, firstly, no such extensions were made, and, secondly, if any such extension was made it was without the knowledge and consent of apprentices and without prior approval of competent authority and as such the same was invalid. In order to appreciate the above contentions it is necessary to examine in some detail the relevant provisions in the Rules. In support of their respective arguments the learned counsel for the parties have relied on rules 18 and 19 of the Rules which reads as follows:- "18. Apprenticeship Contract.--(1),/u. The employer and the apprentice shall, on the eve of the apprentice's recruitment, enter into a written contract to be known as the 'Apprenticeship Contract' on the prescribed form given in Appendix I.
(2) In case of the apprentice being a minor, the contract shall be signed by the parent/guardian as well as by such minor apprentice.
(3) The contract shall be prepared in triplicate and submitted to the competent authority for registration, and after endorsement of registration on all three copies the original shall be sent to the apprentice, a copy sent to the employer and a copy retained by the competent authority.
(4) No subsequent alteration or amendment in the contract shall be made except with the prior approval of the competent authority.
(5) Apprenticeship contracts shall be exempt from stamp duty.
19. Duration of apprenticeship.--(1) The duration of apprenticeship for such trade declared as apprentice able shall be determined by the competent authority after having taken into account the following factors:-
(i) the nature and the job description of the trade;
(ii) the expected degree of skill and knowledge of the trade to be achieved by a worker before entering the employment market as a skilled worker in the trade.
(iii) the likely duration required for attaining the desired proficiency in the trade;
(iv) the practical training, related (theoretical) instruction and the job practice needed for the development of the desired skill and knowledge;
(v) the minimum educational qualifications laid down for entrance as an apprentice in the trade.
(2) The duration of apprenticeship shall invariably be specified in the apprenticeship contract.
(3) Any extension in the apprenticeship period, in individual cases, if considered essential in the interest of apprentice's training, shall be made with the approval of the competent authority. The extension granted shall in no case be more than 1/4th of the original duration of apprenticeship."
9. A careful examination of rule 18 ibid will show that on the eve of recruitment of an apprentice, an apprenticeship contract is to be executed by the employer and the apprentice or by the parents or guardian of apprentice on behalf of apprentice, if the apprentice happened to be a minor, in the form prescribed under the rules. Sub-Rule (4) of rule 18, prohibits any subsequent alteration or amendment in the contract of apprenticeship after it is executed, except with the prior approval of the competent authority. Rule 19 ibid which deals with the duration of apprenticeship period, provides in its sub-rule (1) that the competent authority shall determine the duration of apprenticeship period for each such trade, which is declared as apprentice able on consideration of factors enumerated in clauses (i) to (v) of the said sub-rule. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 makes it obligatory on the parties to state/specify the apprenticeship period in the contract of apprenticeship. Sub-rule (3) of rule 19 provides that an extension in the apprenticeship period, if it is considered essential in the interest of apprentice trainee, in individual cases, shall be made with the approval of competent authority. This sub-rule further provides, that in no case the extension in the apprenticeship period shall exceed more than 1/4 of the original duration of apprenticeship.
10. From reading of above two rules, it is clear that while rule 18 deals generally with the form and manner of execution of the contract of apprenticeship by the parties and the mode in which amendment and alteration can be made therein after execution; rule 19 deals only with the prescription of the period of apprenticeship and its extension in certain cases, by the competent authority. Rule 18, therefore, in our view contains general provision governing the contract of apprenticeship; while rule 19 is in the nature of special provision, dealing only with the prescription of the period of apprenticeship in respect of each apprenticeable trade and extension in the prescribed period of apprenticeship in individual cases by the competent authority. Therefore, to the extent a case falls under the special provision of rule 19, the general provision contained in rule 18 will be inapplicable. The contention of Mr. Ali Amjid, in the above cases is that as extension in the period of apprenticeship amounts to an amendment or alteration of the original contract of apprenticeship it could only be done with the prior approval of competent authority as provided in Rule 18(4) ibid. We are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Ali Amjid. It is true that all I subsequent alterations and amendments in the contract of apprenticeship requires prior approval of competent authority under Rule 18(4) of the Rules which is a general provision, but as discussed above, the case of extension in the period of apprenticeship falls under the special provision of rule 19, therefore, it will not be governed under rule 18. The extension in the apprenticeship period under Rule 19(3) ibid can be granted by the competent authority in individual cases, if it is considered essential in the interest of apprentice trainee. The framers of Rules though used the word "prior" before the expression "approval of competent authority" in Rule 18(4), but deliberately omitted the word "prior" in the following Rule 19(3) before the same expression "approval of competent authority". This deliberate omission of word "prior" in Rule 19(3) clearly indicated the intention of the framers that in the case of extension in the period of apprenticeship no prior approval of competent authority was necessary although such prior approval was needed in all other events of amendment and alteration in the contract of apprenticeship under Rule 18(4). However, the extension, in the apprenticeship period to be granted by the competent authority under Rule 19(3) is neither mechanical nor automatic in its nature. This extension is to be granted by the competent authority only on its satisfaction in an individual case, that such extension is necessary in the interest of apprentice trainee and in no case such extension can exceed 1/4, of the original period of apprenticeship. We are, therefore, of the view that prior approval of competent authority is not necessary in the case of extension in the period of apprenticeship of a trainee and such approval can be accorded by the competent authority under Rule 19(3) of the rule even after commencement of the extended period of apprenticeship. It is not disputed before us that an extension in the period of apprenticeship can be granted by the competent authority on the request of employer but it is urged that such extension must necessarily precede expiry of the original period of apprenticeship. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is that, upto what point of time it is open to an employer to approach the competent authority for extension of the original period of apprenticeship of a trainee, provided in the contract of apprenticeship. A careful study of various provisions of Apprentice Ordinance of 1962 and the Rules made thereunder will show that after completion of probationary period by the apprentice, prescribed under Rule 21 of the Rules, neither the apprentice nor the employer can terminate the apprenticeship contract unilaterally, except with the prior written consent of the competent authority. Any breach of the above condition on the part of employer may result in penal consequences, while in the event of breach by the apprentice, he, his parents or the surety as the case may be, may be jointly and severally liable for refund of expenses and compensation as may be prescribed. The provisions of the Ordinance and the Rules are also very clear on the point, that an apprentice cannot during the period of his apprenticeship become member of a trade union of any class of employees of the establishment where he is working as an apprentice and all disputes arising between the employer and apprentice under the apprenticeship contract during such period are to be referred to competent authority which are to be decided in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the Rules and decision so arrived is final and binding on the parties. It is also clear from the rules that after completion of prescribed period of apprenticeship, neither the employer is obliged to offer employment to the apprentice nor the apprentice is bound to serve the employer. It is therefore, in our view, necessary, that where an employer seeks extension in the period of apprenticeship of a trainee, such request has to be made to the competent authority before completion of the original period of apprenticeship as otherwise the relationship between the employer and the trainee on completion of the period of apprenticeship is governed under the normal law. It is also necessary in a case where an employer approaches the competent authority for extension in the period of apprenticeship of a trainee, that the apprentice be informed about such application of employer to the competent authority, as in the absence of an extension in his period of apprenticeship, the apprentice has a choice to continue or not in the employment of the employer. We are therefore, of the view that where an employer approaches the competent authority for extension in the period of apprenticeship of a trainee on the ground that such extension is necessary in the interest of trainee, he has to make such request to the competent authority before the period prescribed in the contract of apprenticeship expires. The employer in such a case is also obliged to inform the trainee about his request to the competent authority for extension in the period of his apprenticeship. The competent authority in a case where it has been approached for extension in the period of apprenticeship of a trainee before expiry of the period of apprenticeship prescribed under the contract of apprentice, may extend the period if it is satisfied that such extension is necessary in the interest of trainee, notwithstanding the fact, that the period prescribed under the contract of apprenticeship has expired. A prior approval of the competent authority therefore, is not essential for extending the period of apprenticeship. Whether in a particular case the employer approached the competent authority for extension in the period of apprenticeship of a trainee before or after the expiry of the period of apprenticeship mentioned in the contract of apprenticeship is a question of fact, which can only be resolved with reference to the evidence in each case in this regard. In the cases before us there is no clear finding by the Tribunal below on the point that, whether the application of Zeal Pak to the competent authority for extension in the period of apprenticeship of petitioners and respondent No, 1, was made before or after expiry of their respective period of apprenticeships. It is also not clear from the findings of the Tribunals below that whether the petitioners and respondent No, 1 were informed by Zeal Pak., that the latter had approached the competent authority for extension in their respective periods of apprenticeship. It may be mentioned here that it is a moot question in the above cases, that whether after expiry of the original apprenticeship period the petitioners and respondent No,1 continued to work as apprentices or they were absorbed as permanent employees of Zeal Pak. The Tribunals below, therefore, are required to determine this question in each case according to evidence on record. No doubt, in a case, where an apprentice is allowed to continue his employment after expiry of the original period of his apprenticeship without any extension in the period of his apprenticeship a strong presumption may arise that after expiry of the original period of apprenticeship, he worked as a regular employee of establishment, but that too will depend on the evidence in each case. As these important factual aspects of the case have not been resolved by the Tribunals below in the above cases, we declare the orders by the Sindh Appellate Tribunal as well as Sindh Labour Court No, VI, as illegal and of no legal effect. The result of the above declaration will be that the petitions filed by the petitioners and respondent No, 1 under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Before the Labour Court shall be deemed to be pending which be disposed of afresh in the light of above observation, if necessary, by allowing the parties to lead further evidence. There will be no order as to costs.