Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(vi) 'temporary employee' means an employee who has been employed for work which is essentially of a temporary character, or who is temporarily employed as an additional employee in connection with the temporary increase in the work of a permanent nature; provided that in case such employee is required to work continuously for more than six months he shall be deemed to be a permanent employee, within the meaning of Clause (i) above."

That the aforesaid provisions came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in M.P. Housing Board v. Manoj Shrivastava (2006) 2 SCC 702 wherein it has been held -

"8. A person with a view to obtain the status of a 'permanent employee' must be appointed in terms of the statutory rules. It is not the case of the Respondent that he was appointed against a vacant post which was duly sanctioned by the statutory authority or his appointment was made upon following the statutory law operating in the field.
9. The Labour Court unfortunately did not advert to the said question and proceeded to pass its award on the premise that as the Respondent had worked for more than six months satisfactorily; in terms of clause 2(i) of the Standard Standing Order, he acquired the right of becoming permanent. For arriving at the said conclusion, the Labour Court relied only upon the oral statement made by the Respondent.

In Mahendra L. Jain v. Indore Development Authority (2005) 1 SCC 639, it has been held -

"29. .... The 1961 Act itself shows that the employees are to be classified in six categories, namely, permanent, permanent seasonal, probationers, badlies, apprentices and temporary. The recruitments of the Appellants do not fall in any of the said categories. With a view to become eligible to be considered as a permanent employee or a temporary employee, one must be appointed in terms thereof. Permanent employee has been divided in two categories (i) who had been appointed against a clear vacancy in one or more posts as probationers and otherwise, and (ii) whose name had been registered at muster roll and who has been given a ticket of permanent employee. A 'ticket of permanent employee' was, thus, required to be issued in terms of Order 3 of the Standard Standing Orders. Grant of such ticket was imperative before permanency could be so claimed. The Appellants have not produced any such ticket.

Thus incumbent it is upon a person claiming permanent classification to establish that his appointment has been against vacant post, and unless this burden is discharged, merely because a person is engaged for a longer term will not entitle of being classified as Permanent Employee.

In the present case there is no cogent material evidence to establish that the workman was engaged against the vacant post of Amin. The admission on behalf of respondent (present petitioner) is only to the extent that the workman was engaged as educated labour on daily wages. It cannot be construed as an admission that the workman was engaged against the post of Amin. Thus the conclusion arrived by both the Courts that the Workman was engaged against vacant post of Amin cannot be endorsed.