SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. DEVENDRA KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 29.06.2012 passed by the Labour Court , Rewa.

(2.) PETITIONERS also assail the orders dated 18.05.2012 and 30.08.2012. Whereas, by order dated 18.05.2012 Labour Court allowed respondent workman's application under Section 108 of MPIR Act, 1960 seeking execution of order dated 24.04.2001. By order dated 30.08.2012 miscellaneous appeal preferred by the petitioners herein against said order has been dismissed.

(3.) GRIEVANCE put forth by the petitioner is that, the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court failed to appreciate that respondent Arun Kumar Tiwari was engaged as daily wages labourer and the same was not against any vacant post nor any recruitment process known to law, has been resorted to, while engaging him. It is contended that, respondent/workmen was never employed as a Time Keeper. It is urged that, this fact that workmen was engaged on daily wages and there were no sanctioned post against which he was engaged was duly admitted by the workmen before the Labour Court and yet the Labour Court while shifting the burden on the petitioner employer passed an award in favour of the respondent/workmen classifying him as a permanent employee. It is urged that, even the Industrial Court committed the same folly in affirming the order passed by Labour Court. It is contended that, interpretation by Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court of Clause 2 (i) of Standard Standing Orders to the extent that, immediately after completion of six months, a workman acquires a right to be classified as an permanent employee, suffers from vice of perversity in absence of cogent proof regarding the fact that such appointment was against clear vacancy and that workmen has satisfactorily discharged his duties on such posts.