Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr vs Pushpendra Singh Kushwaha on 6 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-4037-2016
(THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR Vs PUSHPENDRA SINGH KUSHWAHA)
7
Gwalior, Dated : 06-02-2018
Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, learned Govt. Advocate for the
petitioners/State.
Shri Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
Petitioners/State have filed this petition challenging the order sh dated 4.9.15 passed by the Industrial Court, Bench Gwalior, in Misc.
e Case No.41/MPIR/2014 and the order dated 23.4.2014 passed by the ad Labour Court No.2, Gwalior, in proceeding under Section 108 of the Pr MPIR Act, 1960. It is an admitted position that before passing of these orders respondent was classified as permanent employee by the a hy Labour Court in terms of the orders passed by the Labour Court No.2 on 31.7.1999 in Case No.200/97. In this order, direction was issued to ad classify the respondent as a permanent employee w.e.f. 31.7.95 on the M post of Time Keeper. Against this order State had filed an appeal No.487/1999 MPIR which was dismissed vide order dated 17.3.2004.
of Against this order, State had filed writ petition No.649/2005(S) which rt was dismissed on 22.9.10. Admittedly thereafter State had not filed ou any SLP challenging the orders passed by the High Court in W.P.No.649/05(S). Thereafter workman had filed execution C proceedings under Section 108 of the MPIR claiming difference of h wages w.e.f. 1.4.1995 to 31.12.2010 and this Misc. Case was ig registered as Case No.105/2004 in which directions were issued by the H Labour Court on 13.1.2012, against which appeal was filed before the Industrial Court which was dismissed on 18.4.12.
Learned Govt. Advocate for the State has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 8.12.2015 passed in W.P.No.317/2013 whereby the Court had observed that the controversy involved herein is squarely covered by order dated 6.4.15 i.e. the case of Kaluram Narwariya Vs. State of M.P. In that backdrop, learned Govt. Advocate for the State has drawn attention of this Court to para 10 of the order dated 6.4.15 and submits that workman was required to file a fresh representation before the petitioners alongwith proof of acquiring permanent status by way of classification. Such submission of the State is nothing but playing fraud over the process of the Court inasmuch as admittedly the order of permanent classification passed by the Labour Court in favour of workman in the year 1999 attained finality when writ petition filed by the State against the order of Industrial Court affirming the order of the Labour Court was dismissed. Once such writ petition was dismissed and no SLP has been filed challenging that order, then subsequent proceeding in execution cannot be allowed to reopen the case of permanent sh classification.
e At this juncture, learned Govt. Advocate for the State prays for ad time to seek instructions.
Pr On his request, time is granted to clarify that how the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.317/13 will authorize the State to a reopen the case of permanent classification which has already attained hy finality. Let affidavit of petitioner No.1- Superintending Engineer, ad Water Resources Department, be filed alongwith opinion of the M learned Advocate General in this backdrop that under which provision of law State is entitled to reopen the case of permanent classification.
of Let this affidavit be filed alongwith opinion of the learned Advocate General within two weeks.
rt List this case on 21st February, 2018. ou C (VIVEK AGARWAL) h JUDGE ig H ms/-
MADHU SOODAN PRASAD 2018.02.07 10:15:54 +05'30'