Madhya Pradesh High Court
Directorate Of Skill Development vs Laxman Mali on 19 July, 2017
Writ Appeal No.392 of 2017
19/07/2017
Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the appellants/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
2. The respondent was initially appointed in the year
1999 in scientific scheme i.e. Trysame and was engaged as daily wager at the rate fixed by the Collector. The said scheme was merged in Mini ITI and vide order dated 23.3.2005, wages has been reduced and he was directed to pay the part time wages of class4 employee i.e. 50% wages. It is not in dispute that in Mini ITI, there are three sanctioned post of Watchman. Against the three sanctioned post, only the respondent is appointed and working in the Mini ITI.
3. This fact has not been disputed by the appellants as is evident from Para9 of the order passed on 19.3.2013. The learned Labour Court considering the aforesaid allowed the claim and directed the appellant to pay the full time wages to the respondent as per the Collector rate and the arrears from March, 2005 be paid along with 6% interest. In writ petition the award was challenged only on the ground that the respondent had not worked against the sanctioned post, therefore, he is not entitled for full wages.
4. Learned Writ Court considering the fact that admittedly the respondent was working in the sanctioned post of ClassIV daily wager and, therefore, upheld the order passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petition.
Para8 of the impugned order dated 17.11.2016 reads as under: "That the petitioner was appointed in the year 1999 against the part time class - IV daily wager post and was paid full wages at the collector rate. When the scheme was closed, his services were merged in Mini ITI and his wages were reduced to half wages, because there was half time sanctioned post of Class- IV employee. It is not disputed that in Mini ITI, there are three sanctioned post of Watchman. Against the three sanctioned post, only the respondent is appointed and working in the ITI. The respondent in his evidence has specifically stated that he attends the office from 7 am to 5 pm and sometimes, he is also required to give night duty. Officer-in- charge Shri K.P. Ahirwar in his cross-examination has also admitted that the respondent is the only employee, who gives night duty. Learned Labour Court has recorded the findings that the respondent was appointed as part time employee and discharging his duty as full time employee. That the petitioner has failed to establish that there was no sanctioned full time post of Class-IV employee in the Mini ITI. In light of Ex.-P/2, he is entitled for full time payment, which was issued by the Superintendent, Mini ITI, Ratlam, in which, the pay of part time daily wager is mentioned as Rs. 2498/- per month. There are three sanctioned post of Watchman and two posts are vacant and against one post, the respondent is working. The Labour Court has also recorded the findings that the respondent is also giving night duty apart from the day work, therefore, he is entitled for the wages fixed for the full time daily wager."
5. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the learned Writ Court has rightly rejected the writ petition on the ground that the respondent was already working on the sanctioned post of ClassIV employee and, therefore, he is entitled to the benefits as applicable to him. No case to interfere with the impugned order, as prayed is made out.
W.A. No.392 of 2017 has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(P. K. Jaiswal) (Ved Prakash Sharma)
Judge Judge
pp