IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH, CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA th ON THE 5 OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 WRIT APPEAL No. 1180 of 2006 BETWEEN:-

MADHYA PRADESH STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH R.K. DUBEY, REGIIONAL MANAGER, PANCHANAN BHAVAN, IIIRD FLOOR, MALVIYA NAGAR,BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI JAI SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)

AND REJENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI SHIVNATH SINGH R/O, 363, HOUSING BOARD COLONY NISHADPURA, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Vishal Mishra passed the following:

ORDER

Challenging the order dated 09.11.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition No.13761/2005(S), the petitioner is in appeal.

2 . It was case of the writ petitioner that the respondent/employee filed an Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL application under Section 31 (3) of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act') read with Sections 61 & 62 challenging his posting and claiming permanent classification. The writ petitioner filed a reply denying the fact that the appointment of the respondent initially was on the post of helper. It was contended that he was engaged at collector rate on contingency basis subject to availability of work and need of his services. The learned labour court on 13.04.2004 had allowed the claimed raised by the respondent and directed his permanent classification on the post of helper with effect from 24.02.1994. Assailing the award of the labour court, an appeal was preferred before the industrial court on the ground that the respondent was not entitled to claim benefit of permanent classification as he was not appointed against any clear vacancy. He was a daily wager employee, was engaged on collector rate basis subject to availability of work. He has not even completed satisfactory service of continuous six months. Learned industrial court has not considered the aforesaid aspect and affirmed the award passed by the learned labour court. Against the same, the instant writ petition was preferred. The learned writ court vide impugned order dated 09.11.2005 has affirmed the orders passed by the learned labour court as well as by the industrial court and has dismissed the writ petition. The same was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.2973 of 2006, which was disposed off on 21.8.2006 directing him to avail intra-court appeal remedy in view of the enactment of Madhya Pradesh Ucchha Nayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. Therefore, the present writ appeal is filed.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that initial appointment of the respondent/employee itself was contrary to the rules. He was not appointed against any clear vacancy. He was engaged as daily wager on collector rate Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL subject to availability of work. The aforesaid aspect was not properly appreciated by the labour court, the industrial court as well as by the writ court. 4. However, on going through the record, it is seen that an application under Section 31(3) read with Sections 61 & 62 of the Act, 1970 filed by the respondent/employee was considered by the labour court. The evidences were recorded. The employee as well as authorities were witnesses before the labour court. From the evidence recorded, the labour court recorded a finding that after appointment of the respondent on the post of helper, he has worked for all times i.e. he has worked continuously for more than six months and his work was found to be satisfactory. The work of helper was being taken from him for the last several years. Therefore, he was found entitled for classification on the aforesaid post and an award was passed accepting the application by directing the authorities to permanently classify him from the date of filing of the application. The appellat