Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sanjay Yadav, J.
State of Madhya Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Bhawanideen Joshi - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 19423-2013
Decided On : 13-11-2013
Labour Court - Industrial Dispute - M.P.I.R. Act, 1960, Section 108, Section 31, Section 61 - The court discussed the application of Section 108 of the M.P.I.R. Act, 1960 seeking execution of an order, as well as the application under Section 31 read with Section 61 for classification as a permanent employee. The court also considered the interpretation of Clause 2(i) of Standard Standing Orders regarding the acquisition of permanent employee status after six months of employment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged orders passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court, alleging that the respondent was engaged as a daily wages laborer without a sanctioned post or recruitment process. The petitioner contended that the respondent was never employed as a Chowkidar and that the classification as a permanent employee was erroneous.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's delay and laches in challenging the orders led to the crystallization of the respondent's right as a permanent employee, disentitling the petitioner to seek remedy. The court dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches.
Issues: The issues revolved around the classification of the respondent as a permanent employee, the interpretation of Clause 2(i) of Standard Standing Orders, and the petitioner's delay and laches in challenging the orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that delay and laches disentitle a party to seek remedy, leading to the crystallization of the respondent's right as a permanent employee.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, with no costs awarded.
Sanjay Yadav, J.
1. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 09.03.2001, passed by the Labour Court, Rewa and order dated 26.06.2003, passed by the Industrial Court, Rewa. Petitioners also assail the orders dated 23.08.2012 and 21.12.2012. Whereas, by order dated 23.08.2012 Labour Court allowed respondent workman's application under Section 108 of M.P.I.R. Act, 1960 seeking execution of order dated 09.03.2001, By order dated 21.12.2012. miscellaneous appeal preferred by the petitioners herein against said order has been dismissed.
2. By order dated 09.03.2001, Labour Court allowed the application under Section 31 read with Section 61 M.P. Industrial Relation Act, 1960, filed by respondent, seeking classification as permanent employee, whereas, by order dated 26.06.2003, an appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against the order of permanent classification, has been dismissed.
3. Grievance put forth by the petitioner is that, the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court failed to appreciate that respondent Bhawanideen Joshi was engaged as daily wages labourer and the same was not against any vacant post nor any recruitment process known to law, has been resorted to, while engaging him. It is contended that, respondent/workmen was never employed as a Chowkidar. It is urged that, this fact that workmen was engaged on daily wages and there were no sanctioned post against which he was engaged was duly admitted by the workmen before the Labour Court and yet the Labour Court while shifting the burden on the petitioner employer passed an award in favour of the respondent/workmen classifying him as a permanent employee. It is urged that, even the Industrial Court committed the same folly in affirming the order passed by Labour Court. It is contended that, interpretation by Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court of Clause 2(i) of Standard Standing Orders to the extent that, immediately after completion of six months, a workman acquires a right to be classified as an permanent employee, suffers from vice of perversity in absence of cogent proof regarding the fact that such appointment was against clear vacancy and that workmen has satisfactorily discharged his duties on such posts.
4. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Mahendra L. Jain and others v. Indore Development Authority and others; (2005) 1 SCC 639, M.P. Housing Board and another v. Manoj Shrivastava; (2006) 2 SCC 702 and judgment of this Court in M.P.S.R.T. Corporation, Bhopal and others v. Awdesh Pratap Singh and others;, 1979 MPLJ 325.
5. There can be no doubt about the proposition of law laid down by the cases referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner that a person with a view to obtain the status of a permanent employee, is under obligation to establish that the appointment was against the vacant post.
6. In the instant case, however, the facts as borne out from record would not warrant any interference. The record reveals that against the order dated 09.03.2001 passed by the Labour Court, petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 65 of M.P.I.R. Act, 1960. The said appeal was dismissed on 26.06.2003.
7. The petitioners did not challenge these orders nor in furtherance thereto they classified the respondent as permanent Chowkidar which led the respondent to file an application under Section 108 of M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 for issuance of Revenue Recovery Certificate. It is only when the application under section 108 has been decided that, the petitioner has woken from the slumber and has filed this petition after a lapse of twelve years of passing of order on 09.03.2001 and its affirmation in appeal dismissed on 26.06.2003. With non challenge of the order passed by Labour Court and Industrial Court a right crystallized in favour of respondent workman.
8. Trite it is that delay and laches which lead to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
