K K KRISHNAN Vs. INDUSTRIAL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an employee of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short the M. P. S. R. T. C ). He was appointed w. e. f. August 13, 1969 as a Book Checker. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on June 7, 1976, He was further promoted to the post of Bills Assistant "on February 24, 1977. The next promotional post is that of the Head Clerk. The petitioner was ordered to work as Head Clerk by an order dated June 20, 1987. According to the petitioner he was working against the vacant post. He worked on the post up to January 20, 1988. However, when the learnt of the intention of the employer to revert him back to the post of Bills Assistant, he filed an application under Section 31 (3) of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short the Act' ). The petitioner contended that he had become permanent Head Clerk after having completed 6 months' satisfactory service as Head Clerk. The claim is based on the provisions contained in the Standard Standing Order 2 (vi), where while defining 'temporary employee' it has been provided that if an employee has been required to work continuously for more than 6 months, he shall be deemed to be permanent. The Labour Court allowed the application and directed the respondent M. P. S. R. T. C. to classify the petitioner as, Head Clerk and pay him salary of the post of Head Clerk w. e. f. January 20, 1988. On an appeal the Industrial Court set aside the order of the Labour Court and against that order this petition has been filed by the employee.

(2.) SHRI K. L. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has pressed on the point of the petitioner having become a permanent Head Clerk by virtue of Standard Standing Order 2 (vi ). He also relied on the Judgment of this Court in 1978 MPU 846; 1990 MPLJ 97 and M. P. No. 919/88 decided on May 4, 1989, (1990 MPLJ 328) M. P. S. R. T. C. v. Bhagiram Yadav, Shri Sethi also brought to our notice a Judgment of this Court in Divisional Manager, M. P. S. R. T. C. v. Rajendrakumar Joshi M. P. No. 18/87 decided on February 5, 1990. Our attention has also been drawn to Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M. P. No 3538/87 decided on January 5, 1990 wherein decision in 1978 MPLJ 664 and M. I. No. 991/88 have been distinguished.

(3.) ACCORDING to us the straight question which falls for our consideration in this case is whether permanency in a particular post could be claimed by an employee by virtue of his having worked in that post for a continuous period of 6 months as provided by Standard Standing Order 2 (vi) of the Act. It would be essential to reproduce Standard Standing Order 2 (i) and 2 (vi), for a clear understanding of the provision. They are as follows:-