LexDWARKA PRASAD TIWARI versus M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
DWARKA PRASAD TIWARI
v.
M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR.
SEPTEMBER 13, 2001
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.]
Labour Laws:
M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Rules, 1963.
Appellants/Workmen approached Labour Court.for classification of higher
posts and for payment o.f Salaries on higher posts in which they were working-
Clause 2( i) and (vi) of Annexure to the Rules-Scope o.f class{fication-lt deals
with class{fication and not promotion-Class~fication means nature of
employment viz. permanent, seasonal, probationer, badlis, apprentices and
D
temporary-Labour Court allowed the claim-On appeal High Court held-
Proviso to standing order does not apply to promotion or regularisation in
higher post-On appeal held: No interference with the views expressed by High
Court-However, employees should be paid emoluments as attached to higher
post for the period served/or serving.
E
F
G
The appellants were workmen holding different Posts but had been
discharging duties on higher Post. They approached the Labour Court for
classification in terms of clause 2 of Annexure to M.P. Industrial
Employment (Standing Order) Rules, 1963 as regards the posts served and
also for payment attached to higher posts for the periods served.
The Labour Court allowed the claim of the petitioners/appellants.
Writ Petitions were preferred against the order of Labour Court. Single
Judge of High Court allowed the writ petitions.Against the order of Single
Judge, appeals were preferred which were dismissed. Hence these appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. It is not necessary to set out the law on the matter nor is it
necessary to remand. the case after setting aside the order. However, the
matter is examined on merit. [78-G-H]
H
Loknuit News Paper Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankar Par.~had, [1999) 6 SCC 275;
76
D.P. TIWARI v. M.P. STATE ROAD TRPT. CORPN.
77
Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai, [1986] Supp. SCC 401; Ratnagiri
Distt. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Dinkar Kashinath Water & Ors., [1993]
Supp. 1 SCC 9 and Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar & Ors. v. Nihalchand
Waghjibai & Ors., [1993] Supp. 1 SCC 11, relied on.
2. Clause 2 of Annexure to the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing
Order) Rules, 1963 pertains only to classification at entry stage and not to
promotion. Employees posted temporarily on higher promotional post
cannot claim status of permanent employee under this clause. [79-D]
M.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Narayan Singh Rathore &
Ors., (1994) M.P.J. 1959 and K.K. Krishnan v. Industrial Court of M.P.
Indore, (1992) M.L.J. 570, approved.
3. Under the relevant statutory orders employees have been classified
as permanent, seasonal, probationer, badlis, apprentices and temporary. A
permanent employee is an employee who· served satisfactorily on a post
against clear vacancy and therefore relates to employment as such and not
to the category of the post in which a person is employed. There is a clear
distinction between the nature of employment and hierarchy of the post in
which a person is employed. The relevant standing order categorises the
nature of employment and it does not classify the individual employees in
different posts according to heirarchy created in a department. Proviso to
standing order does not apply to promotions or regularisations in higher
posts. It applies only to temporary employees as defined in standing order.
If the proviso is applied to promotions, it will affect the future of several
other employees because promotions are dependant upon conditions of
service laid down for uniform application. If the permanent status is
granted to officiating employees without following the due procedure for
promotion, such a conclusion would be wholly unfair and would allow
those in fortuitous circumstances to be put incharge of higher posts, ignoring
the claims of other eligible employees and would lead to disastrous
consequences. Thus, the High Court was right in its view. It is also clarified
that appellants should be paid emoluments as attached to higher post for
the period they had discharged their duties or are discharging their duties.
[81-H; 82-A-B; C-D]
CIVIL APPELLA'TE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 636 of 1998.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.3.97 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in W.P. No. 957 of 1995.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
78 ..
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
WITH
C.A. Nos. 237Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.