Permanent Employee Classification Case: High Court Upholds Labour Court’s Decision

In a recent legal case, the High Court has upheld the decision of the Labour Court regarding the classification of a temporary employee as a permanent employee. The case, involving a temporary employee who worked as a Hindi typist, has seen a series of rulings culminating in the High Court’s validation of the Labour Court’s decision. This judgement marks a significant development in the employee’s journey towards obtaining permanent status. Stay tuned for more details on this case and its implications. #LegalCase #HighCourt #LabourCourt #Judgement

Facts

• The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Award dated 10.03.2000 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Gwalior in Case NO.107/M.P.I.R/98.
• The appellants-State of Madhya Pradesh’s appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
• The order passed by the learned Appellate Judge was also upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court.
• Appellant-State contended that the respondent was appointed on 05.06.1992 for the work of Hindi Typist on daily wages.
• The respondent was appointed as a Hindi Typist on a daily wage basis.
• The appointment of the respondent was made on 05.06.1992.

Also Read: Solapur Municipal Corporation vs. Majarewadi Gram Panchayat Employees

Issue

• Labour Court considered the claim that the temporary employee satisfied conditions to be deemed permanent.
• Labour Court ordered the respondent to be treated as a permanent employee based on the Exception in the Standing Order.
• Decision is justified given the factual background of the case.

Also Read: Vaishali Wadhwani and Mamta Mishra vs. MPPSC: Upholding Justice and Integrity in Recruitment Processes

Arguments

• The respondent had served for more than six months as a temporary employee, meeting the requirement in Standing Order 2(vi).
• The Labour Court and the Appellate Authority upheld the respondent’s claim based on this fact.
• The respondent sought permanent categorization as an employee due to working for over six months in a vacant position.
• The Labour Court concluded that the respondent is entitled to be considered a permanent employee based on the legal position and factual findings.
• The appellant(State) challenged the Labour Court’s decision in the High Court, highlighting errors in the order.
• The Exception in Standing Order 2(vi) applies to temporary employees who meet specific criteria.
• The appellant argued that since the appointment was not against a clear vacancy, the respondent’s claim was not valid.
• The High Court is reviewing the Order made on 17.11.2004 due to alleged errors.
• The Order dated 18.04.2017 passed in SLP(C)No.6697 of 2016 was referred to, where the Court upheld the enquiry directed by the Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
• The Court in the same order approved the method of enquiry by issuing individual notices and provided protection to employees whose appointments were in accordance with statutory provisions, valid state government policy decisions, or relevant court judgments on regular or regularization of appointments.
• Based on the proceedings before the Labour Court where the respondent’s permanent status was considered and granted, this status cannot be disturbed as it was obtained through a legal process.
• The Division Bench of the High Court directed the respondent to be classified as a Hindi Stenographer from 27.11.1999, relying on the Order dated 17.11.2004.

Also Read: Jagdishchandra v. Joint Charity Commissioner & Ors.

Analysis

• The Labour Court classified the individual to the post of Typist as a permanent employee.
• The finding of fact by the Labour Court regarding the classification was upheld by three courts below, indicating no grounds for interference.
• The High Court found that the Order dated 17.11.2004 granted benefit to the individual, clarifying it was not a promotional post but the individual had gone through an assessment process and was currently working as a stenographer.
• The High Court decided not to disturb the benefit granted, considering the long service and the individual being considered a permanent typist separate from the Order dated 17.11.2004.
• The High Court also stated that individual inquiries pending based on similar benefits must not be affected by the benefit granted to the individual in this case.
• The Labour Court, considering the respondent’s length of service, ordered her regularization as a Lower Division Clerk from 20.07.1996.
• The fact that the respondent previously worked as a Typist and was granted regularization from the mentioned date was acknowledged.
• The Labour Court’s Award dated 10.03.2000 was referred to in order to reach the conclusion regarding the matter.
• Clarification provided to the observations made by the Division Bench of the High Court
• No reason found to interfere with the Award dated 10.03.2000 passed by the Labour Court
• No reason found to interfere with the Order dated 16.02.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court

Decision

• All service benefits payable to the respondent will be computed and paid promptly.
• The appeal has been concluded without any costs awarded.
• Finality to the litigation has been emphasized.

Case Title: STATE OF MP Vs. ARATI SAXENA

Case Number: C.A. No.-005814-005814 / 2011

Click here to read/download original judgement