W.P. No.16846.10
Writ Petition No. 16846 of 2010
16/12/2010
Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate
for the petitioner.
The petitioner by way of present petition seeks
quashment of the award dated 18-12-2002 passed by
the Labour Court, Bhopal, and the order dated
31-07-2003 passed by the Industrial Court, Bhopal.
By the award dated 18-12-2002 the application
preferred by respondent No. 1 under section 31 read
with section 61 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial
Relations Act, 1961, has been allowed and the
petitioner has been directed to be classified on a
permanent post Junior/Senior Binder and pay the
difference of wages from 29-04-1998 whereas by
order dated 31-07-2003 passed by the Industrial
Court, an appeal preferred by the petitioner herein
under section 65 of the Act of 1961 has been
dismissed.
W hen the matter is taken up today, it is candidly
submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in a
similar petition, W rit Petition No. 2209/04; Controller,
Government Printing and Stationary Press, Maida Mill
Road, Bhopal vs. Smt. Rashida Bee and others, has
affirmed the award passed by the Labour Court while
W.P. No.16846.10
dismissing the petition by order dated 11-12-2008. It
is further submitted that the said order has been
subjected to challenge in a Special Leave to Appeal
(Civil) No. 13194/09, wherein, the Supreme Court by
its order dated 09-07-2009 while taking into
consideration the assurance of the learned senior
counsel that the respondent shall not be removed
from service and status quo shall be maintained, has
issued notice.
In, Controller, Government Printing and
Stationary Press, Maida Mill Road, Bhopal vs. Smt.
Rashida Bee and others (supra) the Division Bench of
this Court while taking into consideration the
submissions put forth by the learned counsel therein
observed :
“6. W e have heard the learned counsel f or
the parties and gone through the record. W e
are not satis fied on the merits with the
submission raised by learned Govt.
Advocate, as in the reply filed by the
employer it has been clearly admitted in
paragraph- 8 that 150 posts were vacant and
only 522 employees were work ing. Counsel
has submitted that the employees have come
from the Gas Relief and the unit was
established for the purpose of
accommodating them. However, the fact
remains that there was availability of the
vacant post which was not disputed in the
reply filed by the employer, 150 posts were
vacant, thus, no useful purpose would be
served f or remitting the case to the labour
court to give the finding on the aforesaid
W.P. No.16846.10aspect. T he fact of vacancy being available
admitted one, there has to be necessity of
vacant post for the purpose of classification
but in the instant case vacant posts were
available even as per the reply filed by the
employer. W ith respect to satisfactor y
services being rendered by the employee,
there is concurrent finding on facts recorded
by the labour court and the Industrial court.
7. Merely by the fact that initially the
employees were engaged in Gas Relief
Department , Bhopal and later on they were
accommodated in the Govt. Printing Press,
Bhopal, it would not be said that they were
not entitled to be classified, they rendered
their services for 11 years that too
satisf actor y services, as standard standing
order is clearly applicable to the such
establishment, relief has been rightly
grant ed. Having rendered the satisfactor y
services for the requisit e period and due to
availability of the vacant post, the right
accrued to the respondent- employee to claim
classification as permanent. The judgm ent
relied upon by Shri Deepak Awasthy, GA in
M.P. Housing Board & another v. Manoj
Shrivastava (supra), the availability of the
vacancy has been made imperative and
appointment should not be void. W e find that
in the instant case there was availability of
vacant posts and appointment was not
shown to be void or illegal, thus, the
decision does not help the case espoused by
the petitioner.
8. Consequently, we find there is no
merit in the writ petition. Same is hereby
dismissed. No costs.”
In the case at hand since the challenge put forth
by the petitioner is to the orders similar to those as
was subject matter of W rit Petition No. 2209/04
(Controller, Government Printing and Stationary
W.P. No.16846.10
Press, Maida Mill Road, Bhopal vs. Smt. Rashida Bee
and others) and keeping in view the fact that the said
order has not been stayed, and in order to maintain
parity, we are of the considered opinion that the
present petition is also liable to be dismissed on the
same terms as W rit Petition No. 2209/04 ( Controller,
Government Printing and Stationary Press, Maida Mill
Road, Bhopal vs. Smt. Rashida Bee and others).
Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby
dismissed. However, no costs.
(AJIT SINGH) (SANJAY YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
SC