Mathur, C.J. -- 1. Both the references are similar in nature and therefore they are disposed by this common order.

Both these references have been made by the learned single Judge expressing his grave doubt about the ratio laid down in the case of State of M.P. v. Ram Prakash Sharma and others (1989 JLJ 36). The learned single Judge directed the matter to be placed before the Hon. Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench to answer the following question of law:

"Whether the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Statnding Orders) Act, 1961 will be applicable to the services which are governed by the Rules mentioned in Section 2(2) and also to those employees where Recruitment Rules have been framed?

Hence, the present larger Bench was constituted to answer the aforesaid question of law.

2. In order to dispose of this reference, facts given in W.P. No. 350 of 1997 are taken into consideration. The present petition filed by Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Chambal Ayacut, Circle Gwalior and another challenging the order passed by the Labour Court dated 30.3.1995 Annex. P4 and order dated 11.10.1996 (Annex. P5) passed by the Industrial Court. The respondent Dev Prakash Shrivas was working on daily wages as a casual labour from time to time subject to availability of the work. He filed a petition under Section 31, 61 and 62 of the M.P. Industrial Relatios Act before the Labour Court for declaration that he has acquired status of permanent employee on the post of Peon, therefore, a direction be given to the respondent State for classifying him as a permanent employee on the post of Peon with effect from 20th March 1987 with a further direction to make payment of arrears of difference of salary flowing there from with effect from 20th March 1987. The learned Labour Court, by its order dated 30th March 1995 Annex.P4 directed that the respondent No.1 may be classified as a permanent employee and the difference of salary shall also be paid to him. Aggrieved by this order, the Chief Engineer (North) Circle, PWD, Thatipur, Gwalior and Superintending Engineer, PWD, Chambal Ayacut Circle, Gwalior filed an appeal before the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court affirmed the order passed by the Labour Court by order dated 11.10.1996. Hence, the present writ petition was filed.

3. The matter came up before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge had strong reservation about the ratio laid down in the case of State of M.P. v. Ram Prakash Sharma and others (1989 JLJ 36), in view of the judgments of Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ajay Kumar (1997)4 SCC 88 and Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others v. State of Bihar and others (1997)4 SCC 391. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The State of M.P. promulgated M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 (for short the Act of 1961)

Section 2(2) of the Act of 1961 lays down the application of the Act as to whom the Act shall apply and to whom it does not. Section 2 of the Act of 1961 reads as under:

2. Application of the Act -- (1) This Act shall apply to --

(a) every undertaking wherein the number of employees on any day during the twelve months preceding or on the day this Act comes into force or on any day thereafter was or is more than twenty; and

(b) such other class or classes of undertaking as the State Government may from time to time, by notification, specify in this behalf:

Provided that it shall not apply to an undertaking carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or railway administration or a mine or an oilfield.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the employees in an undertaking to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Services Regulations or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the State Go