Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munnawar Ali vs Nagar Palika Nigam on 19 March, 2018
1 WP No.7101/2014 and WP No.6891/2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.7101/2014
Babulal Vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Dewas
WP No.6891/2016
Munnavar Ali & another Vs. Commissioner, Municipal
Corporation Dewas
Indore, Dated: 19/03/2018
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner in WP
No.7101/2014 and Shri Shahid Sheikh, learned counsel for
petitioner in WP No.6891/2016.
Shri Kushal Goyal, learned counsel for respondents.
IA No.1263/2018 filed by the respondent for exemption from personal appearance is allowed since the reply has already been filed.
Heard finally with consent.
It is pointed out that both these writ petitions involve same issue on the identical fact situation, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.
For convenience the facts have been noted from WP No.7101/2014.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming the regular salary and arrears with effect from 29/1/1996 till 2011.
In brief, the case of the petitioners is that they were initially appointed as daily wager and they had approached the Labour Court for the purpose or Classification as permanent employee and had succeeded before the Labour Court, but in writ petition only the Classification as permanent was set aside and now they have been subsequently regularised in the year 2012 and granted the regular scale with effect from 2012, but since the earlier award of the labour Court in respect of difference of salary still subsists, therefore, they are entitled for the regular salary and arrears with effect from 1996.
2 WP No.7101/2014 and WP No.6891/2016Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the award of the Labour Court was set aside only to the limited extent of giving the permanent status, but the award relating to the salary and arrears was not set aside, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the said benefit from 1996 to 2012.
As against this, learned counsel for respondent submits that once the petitioners permanent status granted by the Labour Court was set aside by this court, the petitioners will not be entitled to the salary and arrears for that period.
Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the petitioners had approached the labour Court and award dated 9/7/2002 was passed in their favour and by this award the respondent was directed to classify the petitioners as permanent on the permanent post with effect from 29/1/1996 and it had further directed to grant them the salary and the arrears of salary with effect from 29/1/1996. The said award was subject matter of challenge in WP No.1212/2003 which was allowed by this court by the order dated 15/5/2017 by holding as under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned award is unsustainable in law and the Labour Court committed an error in classifying the respondents No.2 to 6 as permanent workmen. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 6 supported the impugned award contending that these respondents had completed more than 240 days of satisfactory service, therefore, they were entitled to be regularized and classified as permanent workmen.
After hearing the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties at length and going through the material available on the record, this Court is of the view that the award passed by the Labour Court, Dewas, so far as it directs the classification of the respondents No.2 to 6 as permanent employee is concerned, is unsustainable in view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. And others Vs. Lalitkumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has held that a person engaged on daily wages is not entitled to seek classification by resorting to the 3 WP No.7101/2014 and WP No.6891/2016 provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The order passed by the Labour Court, Dewas, so far as it directs the classification of respondents No.2 to 6 as permanent workmen, stands rejected. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly."
The aforesaid order of this reveals that the award of the labour court in respect of the Classification of the petitioners as permanent workmen was set aside by this court. The effect of the setting aside of the permanent status of the petitioners was that the benefits which were flowing from the said permanent status were also set aside as a consequence thereof and the petitioners were not entitled to the regular pay scale of the post in question from 29/1/1996 till they have been subsequently regularized by the order dated 27/3/2012. Hence, no error has been committed by the respondents in denying the said arrears to the petitioners.
Having regard to the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.
The signed order be placed in the record of WP No.7101/2014 and copy whereof be placed in the record of connected WP No.6891/2016.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) Judge vm Digitally signed by Varghese Mathew Date: 2018.03.22 18:30:48 +05'30'