AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajendra Menon, J.—This appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 calling in question the tenability of an order dated 10.7.2014 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.1691/2003.
Having heard Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the respondent/ employee was appointed initially for a period of 89 days as a daily wages Store Keeper vide order dated 16.3.1989 Annexure-P7. His appointment was on temporary basis with a stipulation that he is appointed initially for a period of 89 days and his appointment shall come to an end as and when required or his services can also be terminated without any notice to him. He continued to work and, thereafter, on 21.6.1990 vide Annexure-P2, his services were terminated as no longer required. It seems that before this order dated 21.6.1990 could be served on the employee, he filed an application under the provisions of Section 31(2) r/w Section 31(3) of the MPIR Act before the labour court at Bhopal and sought for his classification as a permanent employee in accordance with the provisions of M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 and the modal standing order framed thereunder. It was his case that he has worked continuously for a period of more than six months on a clear vacant post, his services are satisfactory and, therefore, he is entitled to be classified as a permanent employee and consequently, the protection available to a permanent employee under the Industrial Standing Order Act.
The respondents came out with a case that the services of the employee have been terminated on 21.6.1990, he is not entitled for any classification and until and unless he challenges the order of termination, the labour court does not have any jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It is seen that the labour court went into each and every aspects of the matter and framed the following issues :
"1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the classified as Permanent Store Keeper?
Whether the applicant is entitled for the salary as regular Store Keeper from the date he is discharging the job of Store Keeper?
Whether the action of non applicant for initiating the matter to dispense with the service of applicant is liable to be declared illegal.
Cost and Relief."
Thereafter, answered each and every issue in favour of the employee concerned and directed for his classification after holding the termination to be illegal. The matter travelled to the Industrial Court and to the Writ Court and both the appeals and the writ petition having been dismissed, this writ appeal has been filed.
Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel took us through the material available on record and tried to emphasize that without challenging the order of termination Annexure-P2 dated 21.6.1990, interference made by the labour court was not called for and he also tried to demonstrate before us that the employee was not entitled for classification.
We have considered the submissions made and we find that the main objection of the appellant now is that without challenging his termination ordered dated 21.6.1990 Annexure-P2, the application for classification was not maintainable.
The aforesaid contention may look attractive but when we deal with the same in a proceeding held before the labour court and the industrial court in a proceeding under the Industrial Laws, we have to take note of the purpose for which these enactments have been made and whether the orders passed by the labour court and the industrial court has caused any prejudice to the employer in the matter of non- grant of opportunities or non-consideration of their objections.
If the case, in hand, is evaluated in the backdrop of the aforesaid principle, we find that even though in the proceedings initiated before the labour court, the employee in specific terms may not have challenged his termination but when such objection is made by the employer namely, the present appellant, the labour court made a specific issue namely; Issue No.3 as indicated herein above to deal with the question of legality or otherwise of the order of termination and, thereafter, evidence were led by both the parties and it is only after taking note of all the evidences and other material that the labour court and the industrial court recorded a concurrent finding that the termination is illegal.
That being so, we are of the considered view that in the matter of interfering with the termination of the employee concerned, proper opportunity of hearing and defence was given to the appellant by the labour court, therefore, only on the technical ground as raised, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere in these proceedings, particularly, when a specific issue in this regard has been put to trial by the labour court and after hearing the employer, the matter has been decided. Except for contending that the prayer for quashing the termination was not made, nothing is brought to our notice to demonstrate or to show as to how the order of the labour court holding the termination to be illegal is unsustainable or what prejudice was caused to the appellant due to the procedure followed.
Accordingly, we are of the considered view and in the facts and circumstances of the case, merely because a prayer was not made for quashing the termination, indulgence into the matter now is not called for as the labour court while dealing with the matter, framed a specific issue in this regard, gave opportunities to all persons to lead evidence on the question and it is only after examining each and every aspects of the matter based on the evidence that came on record that this question was decided.
Accordingly, we see no merit in the objection raised by Shri V.K.Shukla. That apart, as far as the classification of the employee is concerned, classification of the employee has been ordered in the light of the evidences that came on record, which show that the employee was initially inducted against a vacant post, he worked for more than six months and during the period of six months, his services were satisfactory. Records indicate that the manager of the appellant''s institute entered the witness box and testified in this regard. It is after taking note of this evidence and the ingredients necessary for classifying an employee as a permanent employee, based on the definition of a permanent employee appearing in Clause 2 (i) of the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules that the labour court, the industrial court and even the writ court has held that the classification of the employee as a permanent employee is proper. That being so, we see no error in the concurrent orders passed by the labour court, the industrial court and the writ court in dealing with the matter and we see no reason to interfere now.
During the course of hearing, Shri V.K.Shukla made an apprehension that now even though the employee has not been inducted into the department in accordance with the recruitment rules, his classification should not come in the way of the employer in dealing with the matter in accordance with law and he is not entitled for grant of regularization.
The question of regularization and classification of the employee as a permanent employee under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules are two different aspects of the matter. A employee on being classified as permanent employee is only entitled to protection available to a permanent employee in accordance with standing order formulated under the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act or the rules framed thereunder and, therefore, the appellant can always proceed to take action against such an employee after granting him all the benefits as may be applicable under the statutory rules.
That being so, the apprehensions of Shri V.K.Shukla that he has to be treated as a regular employee is ill founded and we see do not propose to deal with the matter in these proceeding for the simple reason that the employee is classified and, there is nothing on record to show that the question of his regularization and the consequential benefit available to him in the light of the law laid laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, was ever considered and decided by any of the courts, which dealt with the matter.
For the present, the employee has only been classified as a permanent employee and his termination has been quashed. There being no illegality in the same, we do not propose to inter in the matter as the as the employer is always at liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
Considering the aforesaid, finding no ground to interfere, the appeal stands disposed of.