IMPORTANT POINT
Finding of fact by courts below cannot be disturbed by reappreciating the evidence unless perverse.

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 re