ORDER 1. The order passed in this petition would govern the disposal of connected Writ Petition (s) No. 3086/2004 (Lallan Singh v. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation). 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is assailing the order dated 28.9.1989 (Annexure P-1 passed by Labour Court as well as the order dated 28.2.2004 passed by Industrial Court Bench at Jabalpur. 3. The respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the employee') filed an application before the Labour Court under section 31 (3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for his classification to the post of Booking Agent. The contention of the employee before the Labour Court was that since from the initial date of his appointment he is serving on the post of Booking Agent. Earlier, he was discharging the duty of Junior Booking Agent by order of the then Depot Manager. 4. On the other hand it was submitted by the Corporation before the Labour Court that the employee was appointed on the post of Conductor and not on the post of Booking Agent and if temporarily he was asked to discharge the duty of Booking Agent, he cannot be classified on the said post. 5. The Labour Court after framing issues and recording the evidence allowed the application of the employee and directed the petitioner to classify him to the post of Booking Agent with effect from 9.1.1984 and the difference of wages be paid to him. 6. The Corporation preferred appeal before the Industrial Court assailing the order which was allowed earlier on 18.2.1998. Against the said order a writ petition was filed by the employee before this Court which was registered as Writ Petition No. 4473/98 and this Court on 1.9.2003 disposed of the said petition and remanded back the case to the Industrial Court with a direction to decide the appeal after considering the case of the employee that he was initially discharging the work of Booking Clerk/Booking Agent. 7. After the remand the Industrial Court vide Annexure P-3 dated 28.2.2004 modified the order of the Labour Court. 7. After the remand the Industrial Court vide Annexure P-3 dated 28.2.2004 modified the order of the Labour Court. The Industrial Court though concurred with the view of the Labour Court that the employee is entitled for classification to the post of Booking Agent with effect from 9.1.1984, however, he would be entitled for the difference of wages only with effect from 20.9.1989 the date when the order was passed by the Labour Court. Hence this petition has been filed by the Corporation. 8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the Corporation that the order of the Industrial Court is ex facie illegal and the Industrial Court erred in law by affirming the order of the Labour Court classifying the petitioner on the post of Booking Agent. 9. On the other hand it has been contended by Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent that there is overwhelming evidence and material on record in order to hold that the employee is entitled for classification to the post of Booking Agent and therefore the two Courts below did not err in passing the order classifying the employee to the post of Booking Agent. By assailing the averments made in his writ petition [W.P. (s) No. 3086/2004] it has been contended that the Industrial Court erred in law by awarding the difference of wages with effect from 20.9.1989 the date when the Labour Court passed the order. 10. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petition filed by the Corporation deserves to be dismissed and the petition filed by the employee deserves to be allowed. 11. On going through Annexure R/3/1 which is an order issued by the Depot Manager dated 30th January, 1981 it is perceptible that the employee was appointed on temporary basis on the post of Booking Clerk and therefore since the employee was appointed on the post of Booking Clerk, the two Courts below did not commit any error in passing an order classifying the employee on the said post. The finding arrived at by the two Courts below are pure finding of fact and is not allowed to assai those finding in writ jurisdiction. Thus, the writ petition filed by the Corporation [W.P. (s) No. 7683/2004] is hereby dismissed. 12. The finding arrived at by the two Courts below are pure finding of fact and is not allowed to assai those finding in writ jurisdiction. Thus, the writ petition filed by the Corporation [W.P. (s) No. 7683/2004] is hereby dismissed. 12. So far as the contention of Shri Shrivastava assailing that part of the order of the Industrial Court by which difference of wages has been granted with effect from 20.9.1989 is concerned, suffice is to state that the application before the Labour Court was filed on 9.1.1986 and therefore the difference of wages was allowed by the Labour Court two years earlier from this date i. e. from 9.1.1984. The order of the Labour Court awarding wages is in consonance to section 62 of the Act. The order of the Industrial Court is accordingly modified to the extent that the employee is entitled to difference of wages with effect from 9.1.1984 as directed by the Labour Court. 13. In the result, the petition filed by the Corporation is dismissed and the petition filed by the employee is hereby allowed.