( 1. ) THE petitioner Corporation has preferred this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court (Annexures C and E respectively), whereby respondent No. 1 was declared to be classified as permanent Junior Booking Clerk.

( 2. ) THE brief facts leading to this petition are that the respondent No. 1 was initially employed by the petitioner Corporation as a Security Guard and was posted at Neemuch Depot. In compliance of the order dated 10. 6. 1980 of the Divisional Manager, M. P. State road Transport Corporation, respondent No. 1 was deputed to work as such from 13. 6. 1980 and posted to the Rampura Bus Stand for point to point booking. Respondent No. 1 was called back to his parent Department vide order dated 28. 5. 1982. Being aggreived by that order, the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 61 (1) (a) (c) read with Section 31 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Labour Court, Ratlam, contending therein that he worked satisfactorily as a Junior Booking Clerk continuously for more than 6 months. As such, he is entitled to be classified as a permanent Junior Booking Agent/clerk under Rule 2 of the Standard Standing Orders framed under the M. P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961, as he acquired the status of a permanent employee by working satisfactorily and continuously for a period of more than six months. This application was contested by the Corporation, where it was contended that petitioner was never promoted to the post of a Junior Booking Clerk and there is no channel for promotion of Security Guard to the post of a Junior Booking Clerk in the organisational set up of the petitioner Corporation, and that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter unless it is shown that the promotion was mala fide. After recording evidence of the parties, the Labour Court, vide order (Annexure C) dated 24. 3. 1987, held that the petitioner was working as a Junior Booking Agent/clerk as per order of the Divisional Manager of the petitioner Corporation dated 10. 6. 1980 ad Circular No. 53 dated 23. 4. 1980 issued by the Chairman of the petitioner Corporation. From the evidence adduced by the parties on record, the Labour Court also found that from the date of asssuming the work of a Junior Booking Agent/clerk, the respondent No. 1 was continuously working as a Junior Booking Clerk/agent in pursuance of the order passed by the Divisional Manager of the petitioner Corporation. As respondent No. 1 was working continuously on a vacant post for more than 6 months satisfactorily, he became entitled to be classified as a permanent Junior Booking Clerk and the petitioner was declared as such. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner Corporation preferred an appeal before the Industrial court. But the findings of fact arrived at by the Labour court were confirmed and the order passed by the Labour Court was affirmed. Hence, the petitioner Corporation has filed this petition.

( 3. ) SHRI M. L. Dhupar, learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation, contended before this Court that as there is no post of Junior Booking Clerk/agent in the organisational set-up of the Corporation and the petitioner was sent on deputation, the petitioner was not entitled to promotion or to be classified as a permanent Junior Booking Clerk/agent according to Rule 2 of the Standard Standing Orders as there was no vacant post of Junior Booking Clerk/agent. Shri Dhupar placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Mahendralal v. General Manager, Hindustan Steel Limited 1968 MPLJ 597. Shri Dhupar also contended that a temporary promotion or sending a person on deputation to a post of higher cadre in an officiating capacity does not confer any right on the respo-ndent No. 1 to such post.

( 4. ) SHRI. P. Wasif, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 contended before th