The central legal point established is that a workman classified as a permanent employee is entitled to the regular pay scale attached to the post, as per the MP Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules 1963.

VIVEK RUSIA, J.

1. The State of Madhya Pradesh has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 02.03.2015 passed by the Labour Court in case No.112/2014 ID by which the petitioners-department was directed to pay the amount of Rs.5,88,637/- to the respondent under the head of difference of salary for the period 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2013 within a period of sixty days.

2. The respondent has already been classified as permanent employee under the MP Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee Rules 1997 by the Labour Court. Vide order dated 02.03.2015, the petitioners have been directed by the Labour Court to pay the difference of salary to the respondent. This issue raised in this petition has been decided by the single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.7791/2015 vide order dated 29.06.2016. Order dated 29.06.2016 reads as under:

W.P. No. 7791/2015

29/06/2016

Parties through their counsel. The petitioner / State of M.P. before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the award dated 04/03/2015 passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain on an application filed by the respondent/workman under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The fact of the case reveals that in the year 2004, State of M.P. has conferred permanent status upon the workman, however, he was not granted wages after conferral of the permanent statues. The workman has preferred an application under section 33-(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming difference of salary w.e.f 01.01.2002 to 29/02/2012 and the labour Court has allowed the application preferred by the workman.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/State has placed heavy reliance upon the order delivered by Single Judge of this Court in W.P. no. 1690/2005 decided on 22.02.2007 ( Executive Engineer PWD v. Radhey Shyam ) and his contention is that in the aforesaid judgment, the workman is not entitled for arrears of salary.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/workman has placed reliance upon the recent order passed by this Court in W.P. no. 8208/2014 decided on 09/04/2015 ( State of M.P and another v. Gokul Singh ). This Court in the aforesaid case has held as under :-

"In the present case, the petitioners/State has admitted in the writ petition that in exercise of power conferred under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules 1963, an order was passed on 9.7.2002 conferring the permanent status upon the respondent.

The order conferring the permanent status has never been withdrawn. This court in one such identical case i.e in the case of State of M.P. and another v. Sunil Motiam Yadav and others, WP No. 5990/2011 decided on 05.04.2013 in para-6 to 8 has held as under:-

"6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the workmen in question though daily wagers have served 20 years. The Labour Court after appreciation of evidence on record and keeping in view the Rules of 1963 has directed for classification of the workmen as permanent employee. Not only this, the workmen by virtue of the Rules of 1963 are also entitled for a regular pay scale keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of Rupram Yadav (supra). It has been also pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-workmen that in an identical matter the Division Bench of this Court i. e. in the case of Sub Divisional Officer Choral Canal & Ors. v. Nanhelal Yadav (W.P. No.3094/2009) in similar circumstances has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh upholding the award passed by the Labour Court. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case in paragraph 8, 9, 10 has held as under :-

"8. Without going into much factual details, we find that direction to give benefit to respondent as permanent employee w.e.f. 17.11.2002 can not be faulted with for the simple reason that the State itself has passed an order on 17.11.2002 (Annexure-P/3 of Labour Court record) in favour of responden