Back
2008(3) JLJ 41
S.K. Gangele, J.
State of M.P. and others v. Hariram and others
Writ Petition(S) No. 1306 of 2008 (Gwalior);
Decided on 8.5.2008.
The respondent-workman on an application filed by him before the Labour Court has been classified as permanent on the post of Chowkidar vide order dated 10.2.2000. It has further been ordered by the Labour Court that the respondent-employee is entitled to pay-scale of permanent post of Chowkidar w.e.f. 24.7.1993. [Para 6
Held: When an employee or worker has already been classified as permanent then he had got certain benefits. In the Standard Standing Orders the pay-scale of permanent employee has not been prescribed. However, it is an admitted fact that in the department also there is no pay-scale prescribed of the employee who has been classified as permanent by the Labour Court under the aforesaid Standing Orders. However, the pay-scale of Chowkidar has been prescribed. When the respondent-employee has been classified as Chowkidar then certainly he is entitled to get the pay-scale of the aforesaid post also. Apart from this, the Labour Court has also ordered for payment of salary of permanent post of Chowkidar to the respondent-employee and that order has attained finality. Hence, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners that the respondent-employee is not entitled the pay-scale of Chowkidar which has been prescribed for regularly recruited employees, cannot be accepted. 2001(2) JLJ 399 and 1993 JL 55 relied on. 2005(3) JLJ 233 (SC) and 2006(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 78 (SC) distinguished. [Para 8
vkS|ksfxd fu;kstu ¼LFkk;h vkns‘k½ fu;e] 1963 ¼e-iz-½ && fu-2 && eqdnes ds iwoZrj nkSj esa izR;FkhZ LFkk;h pkSdhnkj ds :i esa oxhZd`r && ml in ds fy, fofgr osru dk gdnkj gSA izR;FkhZ&deZdkj] mlds }kjk Je U;k;ky; ds le{k Qkby fd, x, vkosnu ij vkns‘k fnukad 10-2-2000 }kjk pkSdhnkj ds in ij LFkk;h ds :i esa oxhZd`r fd;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr] Je U;k;ky; }kjk vknsf‘kr fd;k x;k gS fd izR;FkhZ&deZpkjh 24-7-1993 ls pkSdhnkj ds LFkk;h in ds osrueku dk gdnkj gSA ¿ iSjk 6 vfHkfu/kkZfjr % tc deZpkjh ;k deZdkj LFkk;h oxhZd`r dj fn;k x;k Fkk rc mls dfri; Qk;ns izkIr gks x, FksA ekud LFkk;h vkns‘kksa esa LFkk;h deZpkjh dk osrueku fofgr ugha fd;k x;k gSA rFkkfi] ;g Lohd`r rF; gS fd foHkkx esa Hkh ml deZpkjh dk dksbZ osrueku fofgr ugha gS ftls Je U;k;ky; }kjk iwoksZDr LFkk;h vkns‘kksa ds v/khu LFkk;h oxhZd`r fd;k x;k gSA rFkkfi] pkSdhnkj dk osrueku fofgr fd;k x;k gSA tc izR;FkhZ&deZpkjh pkSdhnkj oxhZd`r fd;k x;k gS rc fuf‘pr :i ls og iwoksZDr in dk osrueku izkIr djus dk Hkh gdnkj gSA blds vfrfjDr Je U;k;ky; us izR;FkhZ&deZpkjh dks pkSdhnkj ds LFkk;h in ds osrueku ds lank; dk vkns‘k Hkh fd;k gS vkSj ;g vkns‘k vafre gks x;k gSA vr% ;kphx.k ds fo}ku dkmUlsy }kjk dh xbZ cgl fd izR;FkhZ&deZpkjh pkSdhnkj ds ml osrueku dk gdnkj ugha gS tks fu;fer :i ls HkrhZ fd, x, deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, fofgr fd;k x;k gS] Lohdkj ugha dh tk ldrhA 2001¼2½ ts ,y ts 399 rFkk 1993 ts ,y ts 55 voyafcrA 2005¼3½ ts ,y ts 233 ¼mPpre U;k-½ rFkk 2006 ¼2½ fof/k HkkLoj 78 ¼mPpre U;k-½ izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 8
1. Petitioners have filed the petition challenging the orders Annexure P-1 dated 16.11.2007 and Annexure P-2 dated 17.8.2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Gwalior and Labour Court, Gwalior.
2. Initially the respondent-employee filed an application before the Labour Court under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act for his classification on the post of Chowkidar and also challenged the order of termination of service dated 4.7.1995. He pleaded that he had been working on daily wage basis as Chowkidar w.e.f. 1.7.1990. He completed six months' satisfactory service and was entitled to be classified on the post of Chowkidar. Contrary to this the department issued a notice dated 4.7.1995 terminating his services, which is illegal. The Labour Court vide order dated 4.7.2000 allowed the application of the respondent-employee and quashed the notice dated 4.7.1995 and also ordered classification of the employee from 24.7.1993 on the post of Chowkidar with payment of salary for the post w.e.f. 24.7.1993.
3. Petitioners filed an appeal against the aforesaid order, which was also dismissed by the Industrial Court vide order dated 23.4.2002. Thereafter, petitioners further filed a petition before this Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No.2140/2003 and same was also dismissed vide order dated 18.7.2003. Thereafter, the Executive. Engineer vide order dated 12.10.2004 classified the respondent-employee as permanent Labourer and further ordered that respondent-employee shall be entitled minimum pay as fixed by the Labour Commissioner.
4. After the order of the Executive Engineer the respondent-employee filed an application under section 108-A of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act before the Labour Court for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,66,551/-. He pleaded that the Labour Court ordered to pay the pay-scale to him for the post of Chowkidar w.e.f. 24.7.1993, hence the respondent-employee was entitled to receive the aforesaid pay-scale and salary accordingly. Along with the application he also filed a chart and stated that he was entitled to an amount of Rs.2,66,551/-. Before the Labour Court the petitioners stated that the respondent-employee had already been classified as permanent but he is not entitled the pay-scale of Chowkidar. The Labour Court rejected the contention and ordered for payment of an amount of Rs.2,66,551/- and also issued RRC (Revenue Recovery Certificate) to this effect. Against the aforesaid order petitioners filed an appeal before the Industrial Court. That appeal has also been dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2007. Now, the petitioners filed present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the respondent-employee is not entitled the regular pay-scale of Chowkidar and Labour Court has committed an error of law in granting the pay-scale and issuing RRC in favour of the respondent-employee. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 and Annexures to the Standard Standing Orders the respondent-employee is only entitled to benefits accrued in relation with the aforesaid Standard Standing Orders. In support of her contention learned Deputy Advocate General relied upon Mahendra L. Jain others v. Indore Development Authority and others [2005(3) JLJ 233=(2005)1 SCC 639], and M.P State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and another v. S.C. Pandey [2006(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 78=(2006)2 SCC 716]. Contrary to this learned counsel for the respondent-employee has submitted that the respondent-employee has already been classified as permanent. There is order of Labour Court for payment of pay-scale of Chowkidar and that has been affirmed up to the High Court. In such circumstances, the Labour Court has rightly ordered issuance of RRC. In support of his contentions learned counsel relied upon the judgments of this Court in Engineer-in-Chief, PH.E.D. and others v. Budha Rao
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
