STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Chaphekar submitted that the Labour Court committed the error in coming to a conclusion that the members of respondent No. 2 arc permanent employees. She further pointed out that the Labour Court committed the error of law in directing that the petitioners should give wages to them in view of Minimum Wages Act. In this context she made reference to the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of respondent No. 2 as well as the evidence of Shri Shrivastava and Shri Saxena, the witnesses examined by the petitioner. She further submitted that there are only four permanent posts of Chowkidars and, therefore, it was necessary for the Labour Court to keep this aspect in mind while passing the judgment and award which has been assailed by this petition.

(2.) SHRI Moyal counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is correct, legal and proper. Shri Moyal submitted that the petitioners are serving since 1980 and that has also been admitted by Shri Shrivastava, the witness examined by the petitioner. I find force in the submission advanced by Shri Moyal, in this behalf.

(3.) IT has been categorically stated by Shri Saxena, witness examined on behalf of petitioners in cross-examination that "suraksha Karmi" Karam-charies are temporary employees. However, "chowkidars" are permanent. He also stated in cross-examination that the work which is being done by Suraksha Karmis and Chowkidars is the same. It has further come in his evidence that the concerned employees sign on Muster Roll which is kept for marking their presence. Apart from that, a Circular dated 9-1-90 is on record giving guidance to the officers as to what is to be done in respect of such employees.