( 1. ) THE employers are the petitioners who came to this Court on 22nd April, 1988 challenging validity of order passed in appeal by the Industrial Tribunal (Court) and also the order passed by Labour Court No. 3, Gwalior which was challenged in appeal unsuccessfully. Before the petition could be listed for hearing on admission, on behalf of the employee/respondent, an application I. A. III was field praying for dismissal of the writ petition in limine. Subsequently, respondent also filed a full and complete return and therein he answered the several pleas agitated in the writ petition and he has also brought on record the entire case-history. The averments made in the return have remained uncontroverted.

( 2. ) DURING the course of hearing, it was fairly submitted by respondents counsel Shri Upadhyaya that two courses are open to us in disposing of this petition. He submitted that the question of applicability or otherwise of M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960, for short, m. P. I. R. Act, agitated in the writ petition need not even be considered because doing so would entail discussion and disposal of the petition on a "hypertechnical objection" to the validity of the award passed by the Labour Court. In support of that submission, counsel placed reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court rendered on 3rd September 1987 in the case of Dhari Gram Panchayat v. Saurashtra Mazdoor Mahajan Sangha in (1988-I-LLJ-468 ). We were furnished by learned counsel with the copy of the said decision printed in the "daily" Supreme Views and Law Reporter. That is placed on record. Their Lordships upheld decision of the High Court taking the view that the order of the High Court, though rendered in a lis arising under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, could be otherwise upheld on the footing that "the High Court could have directly interfered with the retrenchment of the workmen under Article 226 of the Constitution if the workmen had straightway approached the Court without raising an industrial dispute". It was held by their Lordships that the relief granted by the High Court by quashing the order of retrenchment was not liable to interference even if the question of applicability of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the workmen was doubtful.

( 3. ) WE have considered it appropriate, therefore, to follow the course charted out in the Dhari Gram Panchayats case (supra) and we propose to dispose of this petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contention raised by the employer petitioners on the question of applicability of M. P. I. R. Act to the lis litigated.

( 4. ) LET first a brief outline of the case-history be drawn. The respondent/employee had moved the Labour Court under the M. P. I. R. Act for twin reliefs. He claimed that he was not being paid the same wages/salary as paid to others doing the same work in the same Department. His case was that he was doing the work of Lower Division Clerk/typist and was being paid only Rs. 669/- per month on daily wages, while others borne on the permanent establishment, doing the same work were being paid a gross salary of Rs. 1,100/- per month. He also claimed that he was entitled to be regularised as a "permanent employee" as he had completed six months satisfactory service "as a probationer or otherwise" and could invoke the provisions of para 2 (i) of the Standard Standing Orders, the "annexure" of M. P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963.

( 5. ) WE quote first para 2 (i) of the Standard Standing Orders, namely, the "annexure", above-referred:

(1) A permanent employee is one who has completed six months satisfactory service in a clear vacancy in one or more posts whether as a probationer or otherwise, or a person whose name has been entered in the muster roll and who is given a ticket of permanent employee". M. P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 of which "annexure" aforesaid is a part, are framed under M. P. Indus