(1993) ILLJ 385 MP, 1992 (0) MPLJ 570
V Gyani, V Kokje
K.K. Krishnan
vs
Industrial Court
Decided on : 18 June, 1992
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1960 - STANDARD STANDING ORDER 2(VI) - CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES - PERMANENCY IN A PARTICULAR POST - NOT CLAIMABLE BY AN EMPLOYEE BY VIRTUE OF HAVING WORKED IN THAT POST FOR A CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (M.P.S.R.T.C.), was ordered to work as Head Clerk on June 20, 1987, and worked on the post up to January 20, 1988. He filed an application under Section 31(3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960, claiming permanency in the post of Head Clerk after completing 6 months' satisfactory service, as per Standard Standing Order 2(vi). The Labour Court allowed the application, but the Industrial Court set aside the order.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the petitioner could not claim permanency in the post of Head Clerk by virtue of having worked in that post for a continuous period of 6 months, as per Standard Standing Order 2(vi). The Court found that the petitioner was a permanent employee of the M.P.S.R.T.C. on the substantive post of Bills Assistant and was asked to discharge the function of a higher post, i.e., Head Clerk, which did not make him a temporary employee within the meaning of Standard Standing Order 2(vi).
Issues: Whether an employee can claim permanency in a particular post by virtue of having worked in that post for a continuous period of 6 months, as per Standard Standing Order 2(vi) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Standard Standing Order 2(vi) applies only to temporary employees as defined in the order and that on fulfilling the requirement of the proviso, such temporary employees get the status of a permanent employee. The Court found that the proviso does not apply to promotions or regularisation in higher posts and that promotions have to be made on some criteria of selection laid down for uniform application.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the order of the Industrial Court was upheld.
V.S. Kokje, J.
1. The petitioner is an employee of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short the M.P.S.R.T.C). He was appointed w.e.f. August 13, 1969 as a Book Checker. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on June 7, 1976, He was further promoted to the post of Bills Assistant "on February 24, 1977. The next promotional post is that of the Head Clerk. The petitioner was ordered to work as Head Clerk by an order dated June 20, 1987. According to the petitioner he was working against the vacant post. He worked on the post up to January 20, 1988. However, when the learnt of the intention of the employer to revert him back to the post of Bills Assistant, he filed an application under Section 31(3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short the Act'). The petitioner contended that he had become permanent Head Clerk after having completed 6 months' satisfactory service as Head Clerk. The claim is based on the provisions contained in the Standard Standing Order 2(vi), where while defining 'temporary employee' it has been provided that if an employee has been required to work continuously for more than 6 months, he shall be deemed to be permanent. The Labour Court allowed the application and directed the respondent M.P.S.R.T.C. to classify the petitioner as, Head Clerk and pay him salary of the post of Head Clerk w.e.f. January 20, 1988. On an appeal the Industrial Court set aside the order of the Labour Court and against that order this petition has been filed by the employee.
2. Shri K.L. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has pressed on the point of the petitioner having become a permanent Head Clerk by virtue of Standard Standing Order 2(vi). He also relied on the Judgment of this Court in 1978 MPU 846; 1990 MPLJ 97 and M.P. No. 919/88 decided on May 4, 1989, (1990 MPLJ 328) M.P.S.R.T.C. v. Bhagiram Yadav, Shri Sethi also brought to our notice a Judgment of this Court in Divisional Manager, M.P.S.R.T.C. v. Rajendrakumar Joshi M.P. No. 18/87 decided on February 5, 1990. Our attention has also been drawn to Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M.P. No 3538/87 decided on January 5, 1990 wherein decision in 1978 MPLJ 664 and M.I. No. 991/88 have been distinguished.
3. According to us the straight question which falls for our consideration in this case is whether permanency in a particular post could be claimed by an employee by virtue of his having worked in that post for a continuous period of 6 months as provided by Standard Standing Order 2(vi) of the Act. It would be essential to reproduce Standard Standing Order 2(i) and 2(vi), for a clear understanding of the provision. They are as follows:-
2. Classification of employees.- Employees shall be classified as (i) permanent, (ii) permanent seasonal, (iii) probationers, (iv) bad-lis, (v) apprentices and (vi) temporary :-
(i) 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.
(vi) 'temporary employee' means an employee who has been employed for work which is essentially of a temporary character, or who is temporarily employed as an additional employee in connection with the temporary increase in the work of a permanent nature provided that in case such employee is required to work continuously- for more than six months he shall be deemed to be a permanent employee, with the meaning of clause (i) above. Obviously the provision is as to classification of employees and not as regards their promotional rights. A permanent employee has been defined to be an employee who has completed 6 months' satisfactory service in a clear vacancy. Atemporary employee has been defined to be an employee who has been employed for work which is essentially of a temporary nature or who is temporarily employed as an additiona
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.