SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(SC) 177

2006(2) Supreme 354
Supreme Court of India
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
S.B. Sinha and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
M.P. Housing Board & Anr. —Appellants
versus
Manoj Shrivastava —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1265 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27360 of 2004)
Decided on 24-2-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : B.S. Banthia, Advocate.
For the Respondent : T.L. Viswanath Iyer, Sr. Advocate, Manoj Chandurkar and T.G. Narayanan Nair, Advocates.

Important pointA daily wager does not hold a post unless he is appointed in terms of the Act and rules framed thereunder.

Headnote:Labour Law—Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960—Section 31(3) r/w Section 64-A—"Permanent employee" and "Temporary employee"—A person to claim status of a "permanent employee" must be appointed in terms of statutory rules—Respondent appointed on daily wages as a Sub-Engineer claimed status of permanent employee on ground that he had worked for more than six months—Labour Court allowed the application—Order was confirmed in appeal and by High Court in writ—Appeal—No case of respondent that he was appointed against a vacant post duly sanctioned by statutory authority—A daily wager does not hold a post unless he is appointed in term of the Act and rules framed thereunder—Impugned order was liable to be set aside.

       Held : A person with a view to obtain the status of a ‘permanent employee’ must be appointed in terms of the statutory rules. It is not the case of the Respondent that he was appointed against a vacant post which was duly sanctioned by the statutory authority or his appointment was made upon following the statutory law operating in the field. The Labour Court unfortunately did not advert to the said question and proceeded to pass its award on the premise that as the Respondent had worked for more than six months satisfactorily; in terms of clause 2(i) of the Standard Standing Order, he acquired the right of becoming permanent. For arriving at the said conclusion, the Labour Court relied only upon the oral statement made by the Respondent. It is one thing to say that a person was appointed on an ad-hoc basis or as a daily wager but it is another thing to say that he is appointed in a sanctioned post which was lying vacant upon following the due procedure freedom prescribed therefor. (Paras 8 to 10)

       A daily wager does not hold a post unless he is appointed in terms of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. He does not derive any legal right in relation thereto. (Para 13)

Judgment

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. The Respondent was appointed on daily wages as a Sub-Engineer (Civil) on or about 7.4.1995. On the premise that his services may be terminated, he filed a writ petition whereupon by an order dated 25.4.2000, the High Court directed the Appellant - Board to consider his case in the light of the purported circulars issued by the State Government for scrutiny of the daily rated employees. Upon the said direction, a scrutiny committee was appointed which found that there had been no vacancy nor there existed any sanctioned post. The Committee prior to coming to the aforementioned opinion gave an opportunity of hearing to the Respondent. He thereafter filed an application before the Labour Court purported to be in terms of Section 31(3) read with Section 64-A of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short "the 1960 Act") praying that he be classified in the permanent category on the ground that he had satisfactorily worked for more than six months and, thus, became eligible therefor as provided under Clause 2(i) of the Standard Standing Orders. The Labour Court by an order dated 22.1.2002 allowed the said application holding :

"According to the discussion of issue No. 1 and 2 it has been decided that the applicant is entitled to be categorized in the permanent category on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil). Hence the non-applicant is ordered from the date of submitting the application of applicant in this Court from 10.5.2005 2 years prior from it the applicant be categorized in permanent category.

Because the applicant had been appointed in daily wages hence in the circumstances of the case and I do not consider it proper to give benefit of salary of a permanent category to the applicant. But, the applicant is entitled to claim pay scale of permanent category from 10.5.2000 the date of submitting application before this Court."

3. An appeal was preferred thereagainst by the Appellants before the Industrial Court, Jabalpur and by an order dated 16.10.2003, the same was dismissed. A writ petition filed by the Appellant was also dismissed. By reason of the impugned judgment, the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Appellant has also been dismissed.

4. Mr. B.S. Banthia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that the Respondent having been appointed as a daily wager, he could not have been declared as a permanent employee as there existed no clear vacancy. It was further submitted that only because the Respondent had worked for more than 240 days by itself could not have been a ground for issuance of a direction for the regularization in the service.

5. Mr. T.G. Narayanan Nair, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, on the other hand would draw our attention to a recent decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Onkar Prasad Patel [2005(10) SCALE 153] and on the basis thereof submitted that, in view of the definition of ‘permanent employee’ as also ‘temporary employee’, the appointment of the Respondent would come within the purview thereof and, thus, on his completion of six months satisfactory service, he would be entitled to either a temporary status or a permanent status.

6. The Appellant - Board was constituted under M.P. Grih Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972 (‘1972 Act’). Indisputably, the terms and conditions of employment of its employees are governed by a statute. The State of Madhya Pradesh enacted the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 with a view to regulate the relations of employers and employees in certain matters, to make provisions for settlement of industrial disputes and to provide for matters connected therewith. In the year 1961, the State of Madhya Pradesh also enacted the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 (for short "the 1961 Act") to provide for rules defining with sufficient precision certain matters relating to the conditions of employment of emplo




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top