The workman had no remedy for execution of the order under the MPIR Act after 2000, and therefore, the application under section 33-C(2) of ID Act was rightly filed and decided.

ORDER : – Both petitions involving the same set of facts and circumstances were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

2. Earlier petition i.e. W. P. No. 1102/2013 was filed by the State assailing the order dated 20-12-2021 passed by Labour Court No. 2, Bhopal in Case No. 5/I.D. Claim/09, whereby application preferred by the workman under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act” for brevity) was allowed directing payment of Rs. 3,27,800/-, which arose out of the order dated 2-3-2002 passed by the same Labour Court in Case No. 10/95/MPIR classifying the respondent/employee as permanent employee w.e.f. 31-1-1995 against the post of Hand Pump Mechanic with direction to pay him consequential benefit of admissible pay scale and other service benefits.

2.1 Other petition bearing No. W. P. No. 8220/2022 is preferred by the workman seeking direction from this Court to release benefit flowing from the aforesaid order of the Labour Court passed under section 33-C(2) of the ID Act.

3. It is pertinent to point out that in W. P. No. 1102/2013 filed by the State, this Court did not grant any interim order in favour of the State. The benefit flowing from the order passed by the Labour Court under section 33-C(2) of ID Act which is challenged in W. P. No. 1102/2013 filed by the State has not yet reached the workman.

4. Bare facts giving rise to the present case are that the workman being aggrieved by failure of State and its functionaries to classify him as permanent employee despite working as a daily wager since 1990 as Hand Pump Mechanic, approached Labour Court No. 2, Bhopal by preferring Case No. 10/95/MPIR by filing an application under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (“MPIR Act” for brevity)

4.1 The Labour Court by order dated 2-3-2002 (Annexure P/3 in W. P. No. 1102/2013) directed that workman be classified as permanent employee on the post of Hand Pump Mechanic w.e.f. 31-1-1995 along with payment of salary in the admissible pay scale and other related service benefits.

4.2 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 2-3-2002, the employer preferred an appeal under section 65 of MPIR Act before Industrial Court, Bhopal, which was dismissed for having been filed with inordinate and unexplained delay of 7 years by order dated 1-7-2009 (vide Annexure P/2 in W. P. No. 8220/2022).

4.3 Consequent thereto, the employer by order dated 8-4-2003 vide Annexure P/4 in W. P. No. 1102/2013 inter alia classified the petitioner as a permanent employee.

4.4 However, the difference of salary flowing from the order of classification was not paid, which impelled the workman to file an application under section 33-C(2) of ID Act vide Annexure P/5 which was registered as Case No. 5/I.D. Claim/09 before Labour Court No. 2, Bhopal.

4.5 Pursuant to the order of the Labour Court passed under section 33-C(2) of ID Act, Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bhopal issued recovery certificate to the Collector, Sehore for effecting recovery of amount of Rs. 3,27,800/- (vide Annexure P/5 in W. P. No. 8220/2022).

4.6 The employer inducted the workman into work charged and contingency establishment in the pay scale of 5200-20200+1900 Grade Pay on probation of two years on substantive post of Welder (vide Annexure P/7 in W. P. No. 8220/2022).

4.7 Application filed under section 33-C(2) of ID Act was allowed vide impugned order (Annexure P/1) on 20-12-2011 directing employer to pay Rs. 3,27,800/-, difference of salary between the daily wages paid to petitioner and salary in the pay scale which became due to the workman on being classified as permanent employee.

4.8 Aggrieved by order dated 20-12-2011, the employer unsuccessfully invoked the power of superintendence of Industrial Court under section 67 of MPIR Act, which was dismissed by order dated 9-4-2012 vide Annexure P/6 in W. P. No. 1102/2013, on the ground that since order dated 20-12-2011 was passed under the ID Act, the remedy to the employer does not lie under th