JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS order shall also dispose of Misc. Petition No. 788 of 1974. ( 2. ) BOTH these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are directed against an order dated 30th April 1974 passed by the Industrial court disposing of Revision No. 112/mpir/1973, relating to conductor pradosh Kumar Khare, and Revision No. 269/mpir/1972, relating to conductor Ramadhar Sondhiya. Misc. Petition No. 786 of 1974 relates to pradosh Kumar Khare and Misc. Petition No. 788 of 1974 relates to ramadhar Sondhiya. Both these conductors were appointed as temporary employees by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. They worked continuously for more than six months. Their services were terminated on the footing that they were temporary employees. It was contended by them that as they were continuously in service for more than six months, they became permanent employees within the deeming provision of Clause 2 (vi) of the Standard Standing Orders. This contention was accepted by the Labour Court. The Industrial Court endorsed the view taken by the Labour Court. The contention of the petitioner Corporation before the Industrial Court was that the conductors concerned must prove that their work was satisfactory during the period they worked and, unless this was proved, they could not be deemed to be permanent employees. This contention was rejected by the Industrial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the view taken by the Industrial court is wrong. ( 3. ) THE relevant provisions of the Standard Standing Orders read as follows : "2. This contention was rejected by the Industrial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the view taken by the Industrial court is wrong. ( 3. ) THE relevant provisions of the Standard Standing Orders read as follows : "2. Classification of Employees: Employees shall be classified as- (i) permanent, (ii) permanent seasonal, (iii) probationers, (iv) badlies, (v) apprentices, and (vi) temporary: (i) A permanent employee is one who has completed six months satisfactory service in a clear vacancy in one or more posts whether as a probationer or otherwise, or a person whose name has been entered in the muster roll and who is given a ticket of permanent employee; (ii) A permanent seasonal employee is an employee who has completed service for a period of equal to 2 /3 of the duration or a season or three months whichever is less in a clear vacancy and shall be deemed to be a permanent employee for the purposes of these orders; (iii) A probationer means an employee who is provisionally employed to fill a clear vacancy, and who has not completed six months satisfactory service in the aggregate; (iv) A badli employee means an employee who is employed on the post of a permanent employee, or a probationer or a permanent seasonal employee who is temporarily absent; (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. " ( 4. ) A perusal of the aforesaid definitions will go to show that before an employee can qualify for the status of a permanent employee under the first part of clause 2 (i), it has to be established that he has completed six months service, that the service was satisfactory, and that the service was in a clear vacancy in one or more posts whether as a probationer or otherwise. The second part of definition of permanent employee includes a person whose name has been included in the muster roll and is given a ticket of permanent employee. The second part of definition of permanent employee includes a person whose name has been included in the muster roll and is given a ticket of permanent employee. This category would include those persons who are appointed as permanent employees irrespective of the fact whether they had completed six months of satisfactory service in a clear vacancy or not. A probationer is a person who is provisionally employed in a clear vacancy and who has not completed six months satisfactory service. A badli employee is defined in clause 2 (iv) to mean a person who is not appointed in a clear vacancy but who is employed on the post of a permanent employee, or a probationer or a permanent seasonal employee who is temporarily absent. The definition of temporary employee includes two categories of persons : (i) employees who are employed for work which is essentially of a temporary character; and (ii) employees who are temporarily employed as additional employees in connection with the temporary increase in the work of a permanent nature. The definition does not cover cases of badli employees who, as already seen, are employed on the post of permanent employees or probationers or permanent seasonal employees who are temporarily absent. There is a proviso to the definition of temporary employee which creates a fiction. By this fiction, a temporary employee who "is required to work continuously for more than six months is deemed to be a permanent employee within the meaning of clause (i)". The fiction created by the proviso operates to give the status of permanent employee to those employees who, but for the proviso, would have remained temporary employees within the meaning of that definition in clause 2 (vi ). In other words, it applies to employees who are employed for work which is essentially of a temporary character, or who are temporarily employed as additional employees in connection with the temporary increase in the work of a permanent nature. The argument put forward by the learned counsel for the respondent employees is that if a temporary employee is able to show that he has worked continuously for more than six months, nothing further is required for him to prove to get the status of a permanent employee because of the fiction. The argument put forward by the learned counsel for the respondent employees is that if a temporary employee is able to show that he has worked continuously for more than six months, nothing further is required for him to prove to get the status of a permanent employee because of the fiction. On the other hand, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation is that if this meaning is given to the fiction, a person who is employed for a work which is of a temporary character or as an additional employee in connection with the temporary increase in the work of a permanent nature would be in a more advantageous position than an employee who is employed in a clear vacancy e. g. a probationer. In our opinion, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. All the definitions in clause 2 of the standing Orders have to be read together. The fiction enacted by the proviso in the definition of temporary employee should not be given that wide meaning which may make the definition of permanent employee in sub-clause (i) nugatory or which may put a person employed in a clear vacancy in a disadvantageous position than a person whose employment is of a temporary character. We have earlier pointed out that to come within the first part of the definition of the permanent employees, an employee should fulfil three conditions : (i) he should have completed six months of service; (ii) the service must have been satisfactory; and (iii) be should have been employed in a clear vacancy. The requirement that the employee should have completed six months service is common to clause 2 (i) and to the proviso to clause 2 (i ). The requirement in clause 2 (i) that the employee should have been appointed in a clear vacancy, cannot apply to an employee claiming the benefit of the proviso to clause 2 (vi) for the reason that the proviso applies to those employees who are employed for work which is essentially of a temporary character, or who are employed as additional employees in connection with the temporary increase in the work of a permanent nature. The words "clear vacancy" as they occur in the definition of permanent employee in clause 2 (i) and in the definition of probationer in clause 2 (iii) impliedly mean that the vacancy should not be in a post concerning a work which is of a temporary character or which is an additional post in connection with the temporary increase in the work of a permanent nature. Clear vacancy refers to the vacancy in the permanent establishment otherwise every temporary employee will become a probationer. The argument that such a construction will make the fiction created by the proviso redundant is not correct. The fiction will operate for the benefit of a temporary employee to enable him to get the status of permanent employee if he has completed six months satisfactory service. But for the proviso this benefit could not be obtained by a temporary employee. The words "such employee" as they occur in the proviso to clause 2 (vi) refer to two types of employees mentioned in the earlier part of clause 2 (vi ). The question then is whether the requirement of satisfactory service has also to be fulfilled by an employee claiming benefit of the proviso to clause 2 (vi ). In our opinion, this condition which is required to be fulfilled by the definition of permanent employee in clause 2 (i) will also apply to an employee who wants to take the benefit of the proviso to clause 2 (vi ). That requirement appears to be implicit, otherwise, as earlier pointed out by us, a person employed in a clear vacancy would be in a disadvantageous position as against a person who is temporarily employed. That could not have been the intention of the framers of the Standing Orders. ( 5. ) OUR conclusion, therefore, is that before the benefit of the proviso in clause 2 (vi) can be given to a temporary employee, the condition that six months service of the employee concerned was satisfactory has to be fulfilled. This was also the view taken by another Division Bench in Ram prakash Gupta v M P. S. R. T. , M. P. No. 56 of 1978, decided on 7-4-1978 (Gwalior Bench ). This was also the view taken by another Division Bench in Ram prakash Gupta v M P. S. R. T. , M. P. No. 56 of 1978, decided on 7-4-1978 (Gwalior Bench ). as the Industrial Court proceeded to decide the revisions on an erroneous impression that the condition of satisfactory service was not required to be established, the cases must go back to that Court for fresh determination. ( 6. ) THE petitions are allowed. The impugned order of the Industrial court is quashed. The revisions shall be re-heard and re-determined by the Industrial Court in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs of both the petitions. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner in each case. Petitions allowed.