ORDER 1. The petitioner by way of filing this petition before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order Annexure P-l dated 5.8.2003 passed by Labour Court. By this order the Labour Court has classified the respondent/employee w.e.f. 11.11.2000 as a permanent employee. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Industrial Court and the State Industrial Court has also confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court by order Annexure P-3 dated 27.9.2005. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court in W.P. No. 6662/2000 (Hari Sharma v. State of M.P. and others) decided on 19.9.2006 and W.P. No. 3838/2005 (S) (Daddi Lal Yadav v. State of M.P. and others) decided on 3.8.2006 with other connected petitions has already held that the persons those who are employed on daily rate basis after 31st December 1988 have no right to claim their regularisation. The aforeaid case is based upon by the judgments passed by the apex Court in 2006 (2) JLJ 1 = 2006 SCC (L & S) 422 [M.P. Housing Board and another v. Manoj shrivastava], 2006 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 78 = 2006 SCC (L & S) 434 [M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and another v. S.C. Pandey]. 3. In the present case the employment of the respondent was w.e.f. 30th August 1993 and therefore in view of the law laid down by this Court in W.P. No. 6662/2000 [Hari Sharma v. State of M.P. and others] Decided on 19.9.2006 and W.P. No. 3838/2005 (S) [Daddi Lai Yadav v. State of M.P. and others] decided on 3.8.2006 the petitioner has no right to claim his regularisation or classification, therefore, the orders passed by the Labour and the Industrial Court are set aside. 4. However, the petitioner in para 4 of the petition has itself stated that the case of the respondent with regard to the regularisation of daily rated employees was under consideration and the respondent's case was also be considered in accordance with the seniority. On being admission of the petitioner itself, therefore, the case of the respondent shall be considered by the petitioner for his regularisation in order of seniority. The petition stands disposed of.