ORDER
A.K. Shrivastava, J.
1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is assailing the impugned order Annexure-P/6 dated 30/6/2004 passed by the Industrial Court, Bench at Rewa allowing the appeal of respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the employee’) and classifying him to the post of Supervisor.
2. The employee filed an application under Sections 31, 61 and 62 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (in short ‘the Act’) before the Labour Court and prayed that since he is working on a clear vacant post for more than six months satisfactorily, therefore, he is entitled for classification as a permanent employee on the post of Supervisor and, therefore, it was prayed in the application filed before the Labour Court that the petitioners be directed to classy him to the post of Supervisor and the wages of the said post be paid to him. On going through the application filed before the Labour Court (Annexure-P/1), it is gathered that there is pleading of the employee that since 19/6/1980 he is working as daily wager on the post of Supervisor.
3. The petitioners by filing written statement before the Labour Court refuted the averments made in the application. The Labour Court, on the basis of the evidence placed on record directed the petitioners to classify the employee on the post of Gaze Reader with effect from the order passed by the Labour Court i.e.1/5/2002 and the wages of that post be paid to him.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, both the parties preferred appeals before the Industrial Court. The appeal of the employee was in regard to classifying him on the post of Supervisor while the petitioners assailed the order in its entirity.
5. The Industrial Court by the impugned order Annexure-P/6 dated 30/6/2004 allowed the appeal of the employee and directed the petitioners to classify him on the post of Supervisor and difference of wages be paid from the date of order of the Labour Court. The appeal of the petitioners was dismisses Hence this petition has been filed by the petitioners.
6. It has been contended by Shri Ashok Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate, that in order to attract the provisions of Clause 2(i) of the Standard Standing Orders which are framed under the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963, it is incumbent upon an employee to prove that he has worked for more than six months satisfactorily on a clear vacant post and then only he can be classified on the said post. Since this has not been proved by the employee, therefore, the Industrial Court erred in law by classifying the employee on the post of Supervisor. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed heavy reliance on a Single Bench decision of this Court State of M.P. and Anr. v. Hira 2005 (2) MPLJ 539.
7. After having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the record, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed and the matter is required to be sent back to the Industrial Court for fresh decision.
8. The claim of employee is for regularisation on the post of Supervisor. On going through the application filed by the employee before the Labour Court, it is gathered that he is working since 19/6/1980 on the post of Supervisor on a clear vacant post and to the satisfaction of his employer. On going through the impugned order Annexure-P/6 of the Industrial Court, it is gathered that document Ex.P/1 was also filed by the employee before the Labour Court which is the seniority list in which he has been shown as Supervisor. Thus, it is proved that the employee is serving since 1980 on the post of Supervisor. But, this would not end the matter. In a case of regularisation under the S.S.O. an employee is required to prove three things:
(i) he has worked for more than six months;
(ii) the work performed by him was to the satisfaction of his employer; and
(iii) he has worked on a clear vacant post.
All these three essential ingredients should co-exist at one point of time. Indeed these are three pillars on which the roof of regularisation rests and if any of the pillars is missing the roof would fall down and, thus, not only the employee would require to prove that he had worked for more than six months on a clear vacant post to the satisfaction of his employer, but, there should be a clear finding of the Court in that regard. Since there is no finding of the Industrial Court that there was any vacant post of supervisor on which the petitioner has worked for more than six months satisfactorily, therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order of the Industrial Court cannot be allowed to remain stand and the same is hereby quashed and the matter is sent back to the Industrial Court to re-decide both the appeals by giving a clear finding as mentioned hereinabove.
9. In the result, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned order Annexure-P/6 dated 30/6/2004 of the Industrial Court is hereby quashed and the matter is sent back to the Industrial Court to re-decide the appeals.