IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was right in setting aside the decision of Labour Court about classification of Booking Agents as Traffic Supervisor II but for the period for which appellants have discharged the duty attached to the higher post, they should be paid emoluments attached to that higher post.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Articles 226 and 227-LPA against order of Single Judge under writ/superintendence jurisdiction-No LPA against order under Article 227-But if nature of jurisdiction exercised is not clear, the matter may be considered in proper perspective in LPA -Case law referred. (Paras 2 and 3)
       (ii) M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963-Classification under Rule 2-Appellants are workmen in M.P. State Road Transport Corporation-Initially appointed as Booking Agents-Later directed to discharge the duty of Sub-Depot Incharge-Sought to be classified as Traffic Supervisor-II-Labour Court granted it-High Court SJ relying on 1994 MPLJ 959 (FB) set aside the order of Labour Court in writ petition-LPA failing-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether High Court SJ was right ? (Yes).
       After referring Narain Singh Rathore case
       Held : Under the relevant Standing Orders employees have been classified as permanent, permanent seasonal, probationer, Badlis, apprentices and temporary. A permanent employee has been defined to be an employee who has completed six months satisfactory service in a clear vacancy. Standing Order, therefore, relates to employment as such and not to category of posts in which a person is employed. There is a clear distinction between the nature of employment and the hierarchy of the post in which the person is employed. The relevant Standing Order categorises the nature of employment and it does not classify the individual employees in different posts according to the hierarchy created in a department. Thus, the employees have been classified according to the nature of their employment as permanent, permanent seasonal, probationer, Badlis, apprentices and temporary. Proviso to Standing Order does not apply to promotions or regularisations in higher posts. It applies only to temporary employees as defined in Standard Standing Order and on fulfilling the requirement of the proviso such employees get the status of a permanent employee. If the proviso is applied to promotions, it will affect the future of several other employees because promotions are dependant upon conditions of service laid down for uniform application. If the permanent status is granted to officiating employees without applying the conditions of service only on the basis that such employees were required to work for six months or over in officiating capacity which is only a stop gap arrangement made without following the due procedure for promotions, such a conclusion would be wholly unfair and would allow those who were in a fortuitous circumstance of being available at a station or depot to be put in charge of a higher post without considering the claims of other eligible employees. Hence, if any other conclusion is reached, it would lead to disastrous consequences. Therefore, the line of reasoning adopted by the High Court is perfectly in order. (Para 8)
       Held consequently : We think, the view expressed by the High Court in this respect appears to be correct and calls for no interference as on all aspects on which the learned counsel for the appellants argued are covered by the passages quoted by us above. We think that the basis upon which the conclusions have been reached is sound. We further make it clear that for the periods for which the appellants had discharged their duties or are discharging their duties attached to the higher post, they should be paid emoluments as attached to that higher post. Subject to what is stated above, these appeals deserve to be and are dismissed. No costs. (Paras 9 & 10)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-The appellants before us are workmen on the establishment of the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation. In these appeals the workmen had approached the labour court for classification as Booking Agents and for payment of wages for different periods for which they had worked as such on the establishment of the first respondent. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 636 of 1998 sought to be classified as Traffic Supervisor-II on the ground that though he was holding the post of Booking Agent but was directed to discharge the duties of Sub-Depot Incharge which is equivalent to the post of Traffic Supervisor-II. The appellants in the other appeals also claimed a similar benefit. The labour court allowed the claim of the appellant. Writ petitions were preferred against the same. The learned Single Judge, following the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Narain Singh Rathore & Ors.1 allowed the writ petitions and set aside the orders made by the labour court. Letters Patent Appeals were preferred against the order made by the learned Single Judge in each of these cases either by a common or by a separate order quashing the order made by the labour court.

2. In this Court the principal contention urged on behalf of the appellants is that the writ appeal was maintainable on the Letters Patent side.

3 . This Court in Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankarprasad2, has explained the legal position in this respect after adverting to the decisions of this Court in Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai3; Ratnagiri District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Dinkar Kashinath Watve & Ors.4; and Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar & Ors. v. Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shaha & Ors.5. Therefore, it is no longer necessary for us to set out the law on the matter nor is it necessary to remand the case after setting aside the order made in the writ appeal to examine the case in the light of the decision of this Court.

4. However, we propose to consider these matters on merits as is done by the learned Single Judge.

5. The learned Single Judge followed the decision of the Full Bench in Narain Singh Rathore (supra) and, therefore, what is necessary to be considered in these cases is the correctness of the view expressed by the Full Bench therein.

6. The Full Bench held that under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Rules, 1963, clause 2(i) and (vi) of the Annexure to the said Rules pertains only to classification of employee which relates to classification at entry stage, that is, on the stage at which person enters employment and not to promotion stage. Employee posted temporarily on higher promotional post cannot claim status of permanent employee in the said post under clause 2 on the plea that what he is seeking is classification and not promotion. This decision accepted the correctness of the decision in K.K. Krishnan v. Industrial Court of M.P., Indore6.

7. After adverting to the decision in K.K. Krishnan s case in detail, this is what the Full Bench of the High Court in Narain Singh Rathore (supra) stated :

"Clause 2 of the Standing Orders in the Annexure to the rules deals with classification of employees. This is in relation to item No. (1) of the Schedule to the Act. It says that the employees should be classified into six categories, i.e., permanent, permanent seasonal employee, probationer, Badli, apprentice, temporary employee. It defines each of these six categories. A permanent employee is one who has completed six months satisfactory service in a clear vacancy in one or more posts whether as a probationer or otherwise or a person whose name has been entered in the muster roll and who is given a ticket of permanent employee. Temporary employee has been defined as an employee who has been employed for work which is essentially of a temporary character or who is temporarily employed as an additional employee in connection with temporary increase of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1278

Cases Referred (5)