1. Application under Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 for permanent categorization as Junior Division Clerk based on continuous service on a vacant post. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 1176
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. BOPANNA, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Kumari Arati Saxena – Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). 5814 of 2011
Decided on : 26-09-2019
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AAG Ms. Kaveri Vats, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kaushik, AOR (In place of Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR)
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Paratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Mayank Sapre, Adv. Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AAG Ms. Kaveri Vats, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kaushik, AOR (In place of Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR)
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Paratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Mayank Sapre, Adv. Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Finding of fact by courts below cannot be disturbed by reappreciating the evidence unless perverse.
Headnote:
(a) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Challenge to order of Labour court - High Court should only examine perversity in the order - It cannot reappreciate the evidence. (Para 5, 6)
(b) Labour law - Regularization or appointment - Labour court finding respondent entitled to regularization/appointment - Approved by appellate forums - Benefit granted on basis of finding of fact by three courts below - Cannot be disturbed. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Respondent herein had filed an application under Sections 31, 61 and 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour court seeking for categorizing her permanently on the post of Junior Division Clerk and providing permanent salary structure of the said post.
The Labour court arrived at the conclusion that the respondent is entitled to be considered as a permanent employee as the eligibility condition indicated therein as an exception is satisfied.
High Court agreed with the findings of the Labour court and appellate courts.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be discturbed.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State contended appointment was on daily wages without clear vacancy; respondent claimed permanent status under Standing Order 2(vi) of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. (Para 3 )
3. Concurrent findings of fact by three courts regarding continuous service for over six months satisfy the exception for deeming a temporary employee as permanent. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding eligibility for permanent status under statutory standing orders are not perverse and warrant no interference by higher courts. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Appeal dismissed; Labour Court Award and High Court Order upheld; direction to pay all service benefits expeditiously. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. Under what condition is a temporary employee deemed a permanent employee according to the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963?
A temporary employee can be deemed a permanent employee if they satisfy the eligibility conditions specified in the Exception to Standing Order 2(vi), such as working for more than six months continuously on a vacant post. (Para 3 , 4 )
7. What is the scope of interference by higher courts regarding factual findings reached by a Labour Court?
Higher courts should not reappreciate evidence but only examine whether the conclusion reached by the Labour Court is perverse. Undisputed findings of fact leading to a legal conclusion are generally not considered perverse. (Para 5 )
8. How do concurrent findings by multiple lower courts affect the scope of examination in a writ petition or appeal?
When a finding of fact is reached concurrently by the Labour Court, the Appellate Authority, and the High Court, the scope for interference is limited, and such findings are typically upheld. (Para 6 )
9. Does a pending enquiry into an administrative order affect the status of an employee whose appointment is based on statutory provisions or valid policy?
Employees whose appointments are made in consonance with statutory provisions, valid State Government policy, or judgments on regular appointment or regularization are protected, even if other administrative orders are under enquiry. (Para 7 , 8 )
JUDGMENT :
A.S. BOPANNA, J.
1. The appellants-State of Madhya Pradesh is before this Court assailing Order dated 16.02.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Writ Petition NO.4225/2005. Through the said order the Division Bench of the High Court has approved the Award dated 10.03.2000 passed by the Additional Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.1, Gwalior, in Case NO.107/M.P.I.R/98 by dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants-State and upholding the order passed by the learned Appellate Judge as well.
2. We have heard Mrs. Pragati Neekhra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants-State and Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and also perused the impugned order and the materials on record.
3. The brief facts leading to the present situation is that the respondent herein had filed an application under Sections 31 , 61 and 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 seeking for categorizing her permanently on the post of Junior Division Clerk and providing permanent salary structure of the said post. In the proceedings before the Additional Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.1, Gwalior, in Case NO.107/M.P.I.R/98, the appellants-State, who were shown as respondents, had appeared and filed their objection statement. It was contended therein that the respondent herein was appointed on 05.06.1992 for the work of Hindi Typist on daily wages. It was contended that the said appointment was not against a clear vacancy and, therefore, the claim as put forth by the respondent before the Labour Court is not justified. The Labour Court on taking note of the rival contentions framed four points for its consideration. While adverting to the legal contentions, the factual aspects relating to the case were taken note. Insofar as the claim as put forth by the respondent seeking that she be categorized as a permanent employee, the Labour Court on taking note of the legal position as also the factual position emerging in the case had recorded a factual finding that the respondent herein had worked for more than six months continuously on the vacant post of Typist- Lower Division Clerk from the date of the appointment. In that background the Labour Court keeping in view the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 with a specific reference to the Standing Order 2(vi) had arrived at the conclusion that the respondent is entitled to be considered as a permanent employee as the eligibility condition indicated therein as an exception is satisfied.
4. At this stage it is necessary to take note of the contentions put forth by Ms. Pragati Neekhra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants-State, with reference to the very same provision at Standing Order 2(i). We have referred to the same and we find that in the said Standing Order the provision made is in respect of the permanent employee if appointed against a vacant post. However, the Exception, as referred to by the Labour Court, is in respect of a temporary employee and the circumstance under which such temporary employee will be deemed to be a permanent employee. In that light we are of the opinion that the consideration as made by the Labour Court is to take note of the claim which was put forth that though the respondent was appointed as a temporary employee she has satisfied the condition to be deemed as a permanent employee as per the said Exception contained in the Standing Order and had accordingly considered and ordered that the respondent be treated as a permanent employee which is justified in the factual background arising in the instant case.
5. In this regard what is necessary to be taken note, in a proceeding of the present nature is that when such conclusion as reached by the Labour Court is assailed in a proceeding in the higher forum what is necessary to be taken note is as to whether there is any perversity in the conclusion
