The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Virendra Karale

Heard on the question of admission as well as on IA No. 3026/2014.

For the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the view that the cause shown by the appellants is sufficient to condone the delay of 57 days in filing the writ appeal.

Accordingly, IA No. 3026/2014 is allowed and delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent had filed an application under Sections 31, 34 and 62 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court, in which award dated 03.11.1999 was passed by the Labour Court, directing the appellants to classify the respondent on the post of Copyist and to pay difference of salary. The said award was affirmed by the M.P. Industrial Court as well as by the Writ Court while dismissing Writ Petition No. 1502/2000 by order dated 31.07.2000. Thereafter, the appellants had issued the order classifying the respondent as permanent Copyist with effect from 09.11.1996. The case of the appellants is that the respondent was entitled to the salary of daily wager finalized by the State.

The respondent had again approached the Labour Court by filing an application under Section 108 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960, claiming difference of wages amounting to Rs. 62,000/- for the period from 09.11.1996 to 30.04.2000, which was contested by the appellants and which was allowed in favour of the respondent by the Labour Court vide award dated 01.09.2004. The respondent had again filed second application under Section 108 of the MP Industrial Relations Act, 1960, seeking wages amounting to Rs. 1,82,900/- for the period 01.05.2000 to 31.01.2005, which was again contested by the appellants and allowed by the labour Court by award dated 15.02.2011. This award of the Labour Court was affirmed by the Industrial Court. The respondent had again filed an application under Section 108 of the MP Industrial Relations Act, 1960, claiming wages amounting to Rs. 4,96,308/- for the period 01.02.2005 to 31.12.2009, which after the contest, was again allowed on 25.06.2011. The said award was affirmed by the Industrial Court and by this Court by dismissing Writ Petition No. 4600/2013 (s) by order dated 12.04.2013.

Learned Writ Court relying on the decision in the matter of Rupram Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others, , passed the following order: -

"Undisputedly the amount awarded to the respondent by the Labour Court by way of above awards have been paid by the petitioners. The plea which has been raised in the present writ petition was also raised in Writ Petition No. 4545/2013 and this Court referring to the judgment in the matter of Rupram Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others, had taken the view that once an employee is classified as permanent employee and permanent status is accorded upon him, he is entitled to the regular pay scale attached to the post. In view of the earlier order of this Court in respect of the same issue in respect of the same employee it is not open to the petitioners to contend that respondent is misinterpreting the award of the Labour Court. The perusal of the award of the Labour Court dated 12th June, 2013 indicates that the Labour Court has assigned cogent reasons while rejecting the petitioner''s claim."

It is submitted by learned Deputy Government Advocate that the respondent has no right to claim regular pay scale on the ground that no recruitment process was adopted at the time of either engaging the respondent or at the time of making his classification as permanent daily wager and his status till today is only of a daily wager, as he is receiving wages as fixed by the Labour Court and his service is not governed by any recruitment rules. It is also submitted that the matter is pending before the Apex Court, and therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Writ Court.

In reply, learned counsel for the respondent drew our attention to the order dated 12.04.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 4545/2013 and other connected matters and submitted that the State challenged the aforesaid order of the learned Writ Court by filing writ appeal and all the writ appeals have been dismissed. It is also submitted that a similar order was passed in the case of Lakhan Singh v. The State of MP & another Writ Petition No. 10447/2013 (s). Writ Appeal No. 137/2014 against the aforesaid order was dismissed by order dated 05.05.2014; the order is relevant, which reads as under: -

" Writ Appeal No. 137/2014 05.05.2014

Mrs. Vinita Phaye, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the appellant/State.

Heard on IA No. 792/2014, an application seeking condonation of delay.

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 04.09.2013 in Writ Petition No. 10447/2013(S).

The basic issue decided and dealt with by the learned Single Judge was regarding regular pay scale payable to the employees, who were classified as permanent based upon the order passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain dated 2nd of April, 2013. Learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment in the case of Rupram Yadav v. State of M.P. and others reported in 2010 (3) MPLJ 350 observed that the order of the Labour Court does not warrant any interference.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that SLP was filed and in Rupram''s case (Supra), Hon''ble Supreme Court has admitted the SLP, however, no order has been passed.

We may reiterate the observations made in this case by the learned Single Judge which reads as follows :

"The record of the case reveals that the sole respondent was working as a daily wager under the Water Resources Department of State of Madhya Pradesh and by order dated 09-07-2002 he was classified as permanent. The impugned award dated 26-09-2012 further reveals that the workmen in question has preferred a reference and the same was registered as Case No. 32/2007 IDR and the Labour Court vide award dated 21-10-2011 has directed the respondents therein to regularize the petitioner and to grant regular pay scale. The writ petition does not disclose that the aforesaid award has been set aside by any higher court at any point of time. Meaning thereby, the award dated 21-10-2011 is still in existence. Not only this, the Labour Court after taking into account the order classifying the workmen as permanent dated 09-07-2002 and the award delivered earlier dated 21-10-2011 has directed the department to pay the difference of pay to the workmen in question. The order classifying the workmen reveals that the same has been passed under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. The same controversy came up before this court in the case of Rupram Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others, and this court while dealing with the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 has held that once an employee has been classified as a permanent employee, permanent status has been accorded upon him, in accordance with the provisions of the standard standing orders formulated under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 and he is entitled for regular pay scale attached to the post. This court in the aforesaid case in paragraphs 2 to 5 held as under :-

"2. Petitioner has been classified as a permanent driver in accordance to the provisions of the Standard Standing Orders formulated under the M.P. Employment Standing Order Act, petitioner claims regular pay scale attached to the post of driver.

Claim made by the petitioner is based on the principles laid down by this court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Hariram and Others, and an earlier judgment in the case of Engineer-in-Chief, P.H.E.D. and Others Vs. Budha Rao Magarde and Others, , in the cases referred to herein, particularly in the case of Hariram (supra) in para 10 and 12 after taking note of various judgments of this court, so also of the Supreme Court, particularly, the law laid down in the case of Budha Rao (supra) it has been held by a Bench of this court that classification of an employee entitles to get the pay scale to the post on which he has been classified as a permanent employee. Keeping in view law laid down in the case of Hariram (supra) and observations made in para 10 and 12 therein, there is no reason as to why benefit as claimed by the petitioner be not granted.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed, respondents are directed to grant to the petitioner regular pay scale to the post on which he has been classified in accordance to the provisions of the Standing Standard Orders. Necessary action for payment of salary and other benefit be extended to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid."

Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment delivered by this court, the award passed by the Labour Court does not warrant any interference. The petitioners are directed to grant the respondent the regular pay scale to the post on which he has been classified in accordance with the provisions of standard standing orders.

No case for interference is made out in the matter, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The admission is declined.

No order as to costs."

In view of the aforesaid 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."

On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the present writ appeal is squarely covered by order dated 05.05.2014 passed in Writ Appeal No. 137/2014.

For the reasons assigned in the order dated 05.05.2014 passed in Writ Appeal No. 137/2014, we find no reason to interfere the order dated 20.12.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 14047/2013 (s).

Consequently, Writ Appeal No. 552/2014 is dismissed.