BABUDAS Vs. M.P.S.R.T.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 14.12.1998 passed by the Industrial Court, whereby the order dated 16.10.1997 passed by the learned Labour Court was set aside, whereby the services of petitioner were classified with a further direction to pay the difference of pay, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submit that law is well settled on the point as held by Full Bench of this Court that classification can be only made on entry stage i.e. at the stage when person enters in the employment and not at the promotional stage. Further reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the respondents reported in AIR 2001 Vol. 88 SC 2871, Dwarika Prasad Tiwari v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another, wherein it has been held that, "Employee posted temporarily on higher post cannot claim status of permanent employee in said higher post. it was further observed that proviso to Standing Order does not apply to promotions or regularisations in higher posts. It applies only to temporary employees as defined in standard standing order and on fulfilling the requirement of the proviso such employees get the status of a permanent employee. If the proviso is applied to promotions, it will affect the future of several other employees because promotions are dependent upon conditions of service laid down for uniform application. If the permanent status is granted to officiating employees without applying the conditions of service only on the basis that such employees were required to work for six months or over in officiating capacity which is only a stopgap arrangement made without following the due procedure for promotions, such a conclusion would be wholly unfair and would allow those who were in a fortuitous circumstance of being available at a station or depot, to be put in charge of a higher post without considering the claims of other eligible employees".

(3.) IN view of this, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.