STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. HARSH LAL GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition preferred by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of orders dated 28.04.1993 as well as 22.3.2012 passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court respectively. The petitioners have also assailed the validity of order dated 20.05.2011 passed by Industrial Court. In order to elucidate the controversy involved in the writ petition few facts need mention which are stated infra.

(2.) THE respondent filed an application under section 31(3) of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relation Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 12.11.1991 on the ground that he was appointed on 1.7.1990 against the vacant post of Pump Operator and on completion of six months of service, he acquired the status of permanent employee. It was inter -alia averred that the respondent is not being allowed to sign the attendance register with effect from 10.09.1991. Accordingly, the petitioner sought the relief of permanent classification as well as for grant of pay scale. In the reply, the petitioners inter -alia stated that the respondent was appointed on daily wages basis as per requirement of the work and the appointment of the respondent was neither made against any vacant sanctioned post nor the same is legal. It was further pointed out that provision of the Act do not apply to the case of the petitioners.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Labour Court ought to have appreciated that the respondent was appointed on daily wages as per requirement and was not appointed against any vacant sanctioned post. The Industrial Court grossly erred in dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner merely on the ground of limitation. It is further submitted that claim of the respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,72,519/ - is without any basis and that the same is barred by limitation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed by the Courts below do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the writ petition involving similar issue has already been dismissed by this Court, in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. In support of his submission learned counsel for the respondent invited attention of this Court to the order dated 21.9.2012 passed in writ petition No.10549/2012.