( 1. ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Govt. Advocate representing the contesting respondents.

( 2. ) PERUSED the record.

( 3. ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereunder while quashing the order passed by the Labour Court affirmed by the Industrial Court, the case has been remanded back to the Labour Court for adjudication as to whether the appellant-workman had worked satisfactorily for a period of six months against a clear vacancy with a direction that for the purpose of a clear vacancy the Labour Court was to examine the recruitment rules and consider whether posts are available providing further that if the posts are not available then also the question regarding the post on which the appellant could be declared as permanent be considered.

( 4. ) THE facts in brief, shorn of details, and necessary for disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass : The appellant-workman claimed that she had been working on the post of a Reference Clerk in the Lok Swasthya Yantrikiya Vibhag, Khand Shivpuri on daily wage basis since 13-8-1985 but she had not been classified as a permanent employee and was being paid salary on daily wage basis. It was asserted that under the provisions of the Standing Orders which were applicable to the Lok Swasthya Yantrikiya Vibhag she had matured the rights admissible to permanent appointee on the permanent post of a Reference Clerk. It was also claimed that a permanent clerk was placed in running time scale of pay the basic of which was Rs. 950/- but she was being paid @ Rs. 32. 40 per day only. It was also claimed that though she was engaged as a Reference Clerk, she was required to discharge the duties attached to the post of Lower Division Clerk. However, she was not being paid salary as admissible to permanent Lower Division Clerk.

( 5. ) THE employer, contesting the claim of the appellant workman asserted that she was appointed on a purely temporary basis on the post of a Reference Clerk and on daily wage basis in a Project in a work-charged establishment in the absence of a permanent vacancy. It was clearly asserted that in the work-charged establishment no clear vacancy was available and the workman was not entitled to get the benefits admissible to a permanent employee. However, in case the proceedings for regularisation are undertaken the workman who stood in the seniority list of such workman at serial No. 202 her claim will be considered.

( 6. ) THE Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workman had to her credit satisfactory service for 11 years and she was entitled to be classified as a permanent employee as envisaged under the provisions contained in Clause 2 (vi) of the Standard Standing Orders. Accordingly, it was declared that the workman was a permanent employee from 2-3-1991 i. e. , from two years before the date of filing of her application with a further direction that she be paid wages treating her to be a permanent Reference Clerk.

( 7. ) THE aforesaid order passed by the Labour Court was challenged in appeal before the Industrial Court without any success.

( 8. ) IT may be noticed that in Writ Petition No. 349/97 (The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department Vs. Raj Kumar Prajapati and others), a learned Single Judge of this Court vide the order dated 10-9-1997 had made a reference for determination of the question of law reproduced below by a Larger Bench :

"whether the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing 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 ?"

( 9. ) THE aforesaid reference was answered by the Full Bench of this Court in its decision in the case of Superintending Engineer, PWD and another Vs. Dev Prakash Shrivas and others, reported in 1999 (1) JLJ 391. The Full Bench held that

"by virtue of sub-section (