STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. versus ONKAR PRASAD PATEL

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 568 · Decided: 07-12-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STA TE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
ONKAR PRASAD PA TEL 
DECEMBER 7, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT ANDTARUN CHA TIERJEE, JJ.) 
Labour laws: 
Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960; Ss. Jl(J) and 611 
C Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment Standing Orders Rules, 1963; Rule 
2(i): 
Filing of petition by a workman for regularization of services and 
payment of arrears on ground of rendering services continuously for six 
D months-Allowed by labour Court holding that he Was' entitled to be classified 
as permanent employee-Affirmed by Industrial Court and .also by High 
Court-On appeal, Held: The Workman cannot be categorized as perma,nint 
employee in terms of the Standing Order since he did not render service 
against a clear vacant permanent post. 
E 
Respondent-workman after rendering services as helper for six months 
in the Public Health Engineering Department of State of Madhya Pradesh filed 
a petition for regularization of his services and also for consequential benefits. 
Allowing the claim of the workman for regularization of his services, 
Labour Court rejected his claim for consequential benefits as he was not 
F appointed against a vacant permanent post Appeal against the order of Labour 
Court was dismissed by the Industrial court and later writ petition filed by 
the appellant-State was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal 
It was contended by the appellant-State that in order to be entitled to a 
declaration for permanency, certain criteria are fixed in terms of the Standard 
G Standing Order framed under the Act; that no evidence was adduced by the 
claimant/workman to show that there was any clear vacancy and the auertions 
made in that regard in the petition was denied specifecally by the appellant; 
that the Labour court recorded a positive finding that there was no clear 
vacancy and, therefore, there was no question of the workman being classified 
H 
568 
STATE OF M.P. v. ONKARPRASADPATEL fPASAYAT.J.) 
569 
in the permanent category; and that after having held that the applicant/ A 
workman had not been appointed to any permanent and vacant post, the 
directions given by the Labour Court, the Industrial Court and the High Court · 
do not stand to reason. 
The respondent/workman submitted that Ex.D-1 clearly indicated that 
he was working continuously and also about the nature of work. Thus, the B 
views expressed by the Labour Court, the Industrial Court and the High court 
do not suffer from any infirmity. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: In view of the clear definition ofa "permanent employee", as C 
given in the Standard Standing Order, the applicant/workman cannot be 
categorized as a permanent employee even though he may have completed six 
months satisfactory service. The other requirement that the service was :t'" 
rendered in a clear vacancy in one or more posts was not established. The 
conditions are cumulative and are not independent of each other. That being D 
the position, the Labour Court, the Industrial Court and the High Court were 
not justified in directing that the respondent/workman was to be categorized 
as a permanent employee. (571-F, GI 
CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6678 of2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.2.2002 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in W.P. No. 569 of2002. 
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija and C.D. Singh for the Appellants. 
E 
M.L. Lahoty, Paban K. Sharma, Sushi! Kumar Jain a~d Ms. Pratibha Jain F 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment of the 
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur G 
dismissing the writ petition filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh and its 
functionaries; thereby putting its seal of approval on the orders of the Labour 
Court, Jabalpur (in short, 'the Labour Court') and the Industrial Court, Jabalpur 
Bench (in short, 'the Industrial Court'). The respondent (hereinafter referred 
to as the workman) filed a petition under Section 31(3) read with Section 61 
of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (in short, 'the M.P. fi 
570 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Act'). His stand in the essence was that he was in the services of the Public 
Health Engineering Department and was working at Jabalpur Sub-Division 
since 17.11.1991 as a Helper. He prayed for regularization of his services on 
the ground that he had rendered services for more than six months in a 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.