GOPI CHAND GUPTA Vs. M P ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are disposed of by this judgment as they arise out of common order passed by the single Bench.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that: The appellants have filed applications for their classification as permanent before the Labour Court under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employees Standing Orders Act (hereinafter, referred to as the "Act"). Appellants claimed that they have become eligible to be classified as "permanent" against the posts of Office Assistant Grade III. Appellants contended that they have worked continuously on the post for more than six months, therefore, they have acquired the right to be classified as permanent under the provisions of the Act. Labour Court allowed the application and held that the appellants are entitled to be classified as permanent and the order dismissing with their services was quashed. In appeal, the Industrial Court has affirmed the finding that the appellants are entitled to be classified permanent employees against the post of Office Assistant Grade III. Employer has taken a plea that the workmen were not permanent employees. They were engaged on 11/06/1986 as trainees for a period of six months against the post of Office Assistant Grade III. Appellants were required to pass departmental examination after completion of training and thereafter they could be appointed on the post of Office Assistant Grade III. Since the appellants could not pass the test and clear training, their training period was extended for further period of six months. Even after the extended period of training, appellants could not clear the test and further time was extended by six months, but the appellants failed in the test. When the appellants failed to pass the examination, it was decided to dispense with their service with effect from 18/01/1998. Since contention of the employer was not accepted either by the Labour Court or by the Industrial Court, employer filed a writ petition before this Court. Learned single Judge while considering the scope of Standard Standing Orders held that for acquiring the status of permanent, the essential ingredient is that the workman must have worked satisfactorily against vacant post for a period of six months. Single Bench held that since the appellants were trainees and were not appointed, therefore, the Labour Court and the Industrial Court erred in holding that the workmen have acquired the status of permanent employee and directing for payment of difference of salary. Single Bench allowed the writ petition filed by the employer and quashed the orders passed by the Labour Court as well as Industrial Court.

(3.) In this appeal, preliminary objection is raised by the counsel for the respondents that the petition filed initially was under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, this Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Gwalior Development Authority v. Harishankar Sharma, 2001(3) MPLJ 610, wherein Division Bench has held that when the petitioner has invoked jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the case was considered within the ambit of the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, Letters Patent Appeal was held to be not maintainable relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of E. R. M. C. Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. v. Union of India and another, AIR 2001 SC 883. In support of this contention, counsel for the respondents also referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena v. Darshanlal and another, L.P.A. No. 130/2000 decided on 7/09/2001, wherein Division Bench of this Court has held that since the order passed by the single Bench was in exercise of the powers of superintendence, Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable and the appeal was dismissed.