Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 341 (MP)

Babudas v. M. P. S. R. T. C.

2005-03-04

N.K.MODY

body2005
ORDER 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.1998 passed by the Industrial Court, whereby the order dated 16.10.1997 passed by the learned Labour Court was set aside, whereby the services of petitioner were classified with a further direction to pay the difference of pay, the present petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that petitioner joined the services of MPSRTC as Conductor. The case of the petitioner is that respondents invited applications for the post of Bill Assistant. The petitioner applied for and was selected as Bill Assistant and vide order dated 17.1.1986 was posted to work as Bill Assistant. Since the salary for the post of Bill Assistant was not paid, therefore, petitioner moved an application for classification on the post of Bill Assistant under section 31(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. The application of the petitioner was opposed on the ground that the post of Bill Assistant is a promotional post, therefore, petitioner cannot claim classification on that post. After considering all the facts, the learned Labour Court allowed the application and directed to classify the petitioner on the post of Bill Assistant and also directed to pay the difference of salary. In appeal filed by MPSRTC, learned Industrial Court, after applying principles as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court reported in 1994 JLJ 648 = 1994 MPLJ 959 [M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Narain Singh Rathore and others], allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Labour Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the promotion channel from the post of Conductor goes to the post of Booking Agent, in traffic department. In the office, next post of promotion from the post of clerk is the post of Bi II Assistant. It is further submitted that so far as filling up the post of Bill Assistant. It is further submitted that so far as filling up the post of Bill Assistant, 50% posts are being filled up by promotion and rest of the 50% posts are being filled in by direct recruitment. It is further submitted that so far as filling up the post of Bill Assistant. It is further submitted that so far as filling up the post of Bill Assistant, 50% posts are being filled up by promotion and rest of the 50% posts are being filled in by direct recruitment. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner was selected for the post of Bill Assistant by the respondents and the post of Bill Assistant is not the promotional post of the Conductor, therefore by applying the case reported in 1994 JLJ 648 = 1994 MPLJ 959 , his claim could not be rejected. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the order by the learned Industrial Court, no reason has been assigned for holding that the post of Bill Assistant is the post of promotion. It is submitted that in another case, which was disposed by learned Industrial Court vide order dated 5.10.1998 prior to four months in Appeal No. 882/MPIR/91, wherein the order of classification passed by learned Labour Court has been confirmed wherein a security guard was discharging the duties of booking agent. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that law is well settled on the point as held by Full Bench of this Court that classification can be only made on entry stage i.e. at the stage when person enters in the employment and not at the promotional stage. Further reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the respondents reported in AIR 2001 Vol. 88 SC 2871, Dwarika Prasad Tiwari v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another, wherein it has been held that, "Employee posted temporarily on higher post cannot claim status of permanent employee in said higher post. it was further observed that proviso to Standing Order does not apply to promotions or regularisations in higher posts. It applies only to temporary employees as defined in standard standing order and on fulfilling the requirement of the proviso such employees get the status of a permanent employee. If the proviso is applied to promotions, it will affect the future of several other employees because promotions are dependent upon conditions of service laid down for uniform application. It applies only to temporary employees as defined in standard standing order and on fulfilling the requirement of the proviso such employees get the status of a permanent employee. If the proviso is applied to promotions, it will affect the future of several other employees because promotions are dependent upon conditions of service laid down for uniform application. If the permanent status is granted to officiating employees without applying the conditions of service only on the basis that such employees were required to work for six months or over in officiating capacity which is only a stopgap arrangement made without following the due procedure for promotions, such a conclusion would be wholly unfair and would allow those who were in a fortuitous circumstance of being available at a station or depot, to be put in charge of a higher post without considering the claims of other eligible employees". 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor and was attached to the bus stand at the relevant time, as is evident from the order dated 17.1.1986, whereby the petitioner was posted as Bill Assistant. Since the petitioner was not appointed as Bill Assistant and the petitioner was appointed as Conductor, therefore it cannot be said that petitioner is entitled to be classified on the said post. 5. In view of this, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.