Chief Engineer vs Omprakash

On due consideration, the application is allowed and the delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned. By this writ appeal, appellant/State of M.P. has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 11th of January, 2013 in W.P. No. 3765/2012 and other connected matters.

The basic issue decided and dealt with by the learned Single Judge was regarding payable to the employee who were classified as permanent based upon the order passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain dated 26th of November, 2010. Learned Single Judge relying upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court passed in W.P. 2931/2006 (s) and other identical case observed that the order of the Labour Court was sustainable.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that with respect to the judgment of the Division Bench, SLP were filed and in one of Roopram case, Hon''ble Supreme Court has admitted the SLP, however, no order has been passed with respect to the Division Bench Judgment as quoted above.

To appreciate the controversy, we are required to reiterate our own view which has been quoted in support of the decision given by the learned single Judge as follows:

We find that the award which has been challenged was passed on 22/09/2006 much prior to that the award dated 18/03/2004 was passed holding the respondents to be entitled for classification as a permanent employees and directed the petitioner to pay the respondents all the benefits of a permanent employee. We find that the delay in filing this petition has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioners. In the circumstances in our considered view, on the ground of delay and limitation the ground of delay and limitation the petition deserves to be dismissed. However, we have also heard the matter at length on merits.

Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Deputy Government Advocate has argued that on being classified as a permanent employees, the respondents cannot claim benefits of permanent employees and the action of the petitioner in paying them minimum wages as per the order dated 09/03/2005 (Annexure P-3) cannot be said to be unjustified.

On the other hand Shri S.H. Moyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed on record various judgments passed by this Court from time to time including the orders dated 09/02/2010 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 1088 of 2006 (S) (State of Madhya Pradesh v. M.P. Damik Vetan Karmarchari Sangh and others), W.P. No. 683 of 2004 (State of M.P. and another v. Madhya Pradesh Karmachari Congress) decided on 24/01/2011, W.P. No. 3875 of 2008 (State of. M.P. and another v. Harish and another) decided on 08/03/2010, W.P. No. 3094 of 2009 (Sub-Divisional Officer and others v. Nanhelaj Yadav) decided on 09/09/2009, the order dated 23/02/2011 passed by Supreme Court dismissing the SLP against the order passed in the case of SDO Choral Canal and Ors. v. Nanhelal Yadav and others (supra) a judgment passed by learned. Single Judge placing reliance on various Division Bench judgments of this Court, and the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Hariram and Others, in support of his contention that on being classified as a permanent employee or workman the benefits flowing from such classification are required to be extended in favour of such employee/workman.

In our considered view, there cannot be any doubt that once an employee has been conferred the status of permanent employee/workman, he automatically becomes entitled for the salary and pay scale of that post.

We find that the reliance placed by the learned Deputy Government Advocate on the Supreme Court judgment is highly misplaced. The judgment of Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu and Others, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The said case is relating to absorption/regularization whereas, the present case is arising out of the case of the Labour Court by which the status of permanent employee has been conferred upon the employees/workmen. Learned Deputy Government Advocate could not point out any illegality in the order passed by the Labour Court by which the employees of the respondent Union have been held to be entitled for classification. On the other hand, it appears that the State Government has accepted the classification and ordered for classification in terms of the earlier order passed by the labour Court. However for granting the monetary benefits flowing from such classification as permanent employee, the plea which is taken by the learned Deputy Government Advocate is having no legs to stand.

In the circumstances, keeping in view that on earlier occasions various orders have been passed by this Court from time to time extending the benefits of classification on being classified as a permanent employee/workman are entitled for the pay scale, we are not inclined to take a different view. In the circumstances, we dismiss this writ petition and maintain the impugned order passed by the Labour Court.

No orders as to costs.

Since we have taken a view in the Division Bench judgment as quoted above which issue has not been set aside by Hon''ble Supreme Court, we find no reason to interfere with the view and the approach taken by the learned single Judge. Consequently, present writ appeal is dismissed.

Cc as per rules.