2001 JTR(SC) 1278
2001 AIR(SC) 2871 ; 2001 AIR(SCW) 3757 ; 2001 3 CLR 596 ; 2002 100 FJR 58 ; 2001 91 FLR 494 ; 2001 2 JLJ 235 ; 2002 1 JLJ 256 ; 2001 7 JT 607 ; 2001 LIC 3728 ; 2001 2 LLJ 1234 ; 2002 1 LLN 65 ; 2001 4 RSJ 497 ; 2001 6 Scale 285 ; 2001 8 SCC 322 ; 2002 SCC(L&S) 9 ; 2001 SCR 76 ; 2001 4 SCT 419 ; 2001 4 SLR 383 ; 2001 6 SLT 597 ; 2001 KHC 1649 ; 2001 7 Supreme 48
2001(7) Supreme 48
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu and S.N. Variava, JJ.
Dwarka Prasad Tiwari -Appellant
versus
M.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 636 of 1998
With
C.A. Nos. 2372-2373 and 2375-2378 of 1999
Decided on 13-9-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Dr. T.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate, L.S. Chauhan, N.R. Choudhary, Somnath Mukherjee, J.S. Pandey, Shiv Sagar Tiwari, and Rajesh Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : A.K. Chitale, Sr. Advocate, Niraj Sharma, A.K. Srivastava, Ms. J.S. Wad, Ashish Wad, Ms. Niharika Bahl and Manoj Wad, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was right in setting aside the decision of Labour Court about classification of Booking Agents as Traffic Supervisor II but for the period for which appellants have discharged the duty attached to the higher post, they should be paid emoluments attached to that higher post.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.227, Art.226
MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT RULES : Annex.2(vi), Annex.2(i)
(A) The relevant statutory framework under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Rules, 1963 read in conjunction with the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the jurisdictional principles elucidated in the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and this Court on writ jurisdiction over labour court orders, governs the classification and posting of employees in a large public sector undertaking. The rules, particularly clause 2(i) and clause 2(vi) of the Annexure, operate strictly at the entry stage to define categories such as permanent, temporary, probationer, Badli, apprentice, and seasonal employment, and do not provide a mechanism for promotion or for converting temporary postings into permanent incumbencies. Any dispute concerning the quantum of wages for duties performed while temporarily manning a higher post falls outside the classification scheme and is governed by the underlying service conditions and the duty of the employer to pay emoluments corresponding to the actual duties discharged. The interplay between Article 226 (High Court supervisory jurisdiction) and the specialised jurisdiction of the labour court under the Industrial Employment Act is determinative of the maintainability of the writ petitions filed against the labour courts orders.
(B) The core legal principles are that (i) classification under the standing orders is confined to the initial entry into service and cannot be extended to cover promotion or post-based entitlements; (ii) temporary performance of higher duties does not create a right to be classified in the higher grade; (iii) employees performing higher duties are entitled only to the corresponding emoluments during such performance; and (iv) writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable to interfere with a labour courts determination of classification once the writ petition is entertained on the Letters Patent side.
Facts of the case:
The appellants were workmen employed with the first respondent, M.P. State Road Transport Corporation. They approached the labour court seeking classification as Booking Agents and directions for payment of wages for the period during which they had performed the duties of Booking Agents. In one appeal, the appellant sought classification as Traffic Supervisor-II on the ground that his duties were equivalent to that post, while other appellants sought similar benefits. The labour court granted the relief, but the learned Single Judge set aside the orders on the basis of the High Courts decision in Narain Singh Rathore. Letters Patent Appeals were subsequently filed, challenging the Single Judges order.
Findings of Court:
The Full Bench of the High Court held that clauses 2(i) and 2(vi) of the Annexure pertain only to classification at the entry stage and not to promotion. An employee temporarily posted on a higher post cannot claim the status of a permanent employee in that post under the classification rules. The court clarified that once an employee becomes entitled to permanent status, the classification provisions are exhausted, and further claims must be based on service conditions governing promotions. The High Courts reasoning was affirmed as sound and comprehensive.
Issues:
The primary issue was whether the writ appeal was maintainable on the Letters Patent side and whether the labour court had the jurisdiction to direct classification and payment of wages for duties performed in a higher post. The subsidiary issue was whether temporary performance of higher duties could give rise to a claim for permanent classification and corresponding emoluments under the standing orders.
Ratio Decidendi:
The classification provisions in the standing orders operate only at the entry stage and do not cover promotion or post-based claims. Temporary performance of higher duties attracts corresponding emoluments during the period of such performance, but it does not convert the employee into a permanent holder of the higher post. Jurisdiction under the Letters Patent side to interfere with labour court orders on classification is not available once the matter is entertained on the merits under the established procedure.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed with no costs.
(A) The relevant statutory framework under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Rules, 1963 read in conjunction with the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the jurisdictional principles elucidated in the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and this Court on writ jurisdiction over labour court orders, governs the classification and posting of employees in a large public sector undertaking. The rules, particularly clause 2(i) and clause 2(vi) of the Annexure, operate strictly at the entry stage to define categories such as permanent, temporary, probationer, Badli, apprentice, and seasonal employment, and do not provide a mechanism for promotion or for converting temporary postings into permanent incumbencies. Any dispute concerning the quantum of wages for duties performed while temporarily manning a higher post falls outside the classification scheme and is governed by the underlying service conditions and the duty of the employer to pay emoluments corresponding to the actual duties discharged. The interplay between Article 226 (High Court supervisory jurisdiction) and the specialised jurisdiction of the labour court under the Industrial Employment Act is determinative of the maintainability of the writ petitions filed against the labour courts orders.
(B) The core legal principles are that (i) classification under the standing orders is confined to the initial entry into service and cannot be extended to cover promotion or post-based entitlements; (ii) temporary performance of higher duties does not create a right to be classified in the higher grade; (iii) employees performing higher duties are entitled only to the corresponding emoluments during such performance; and (iv) writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable to interfere with a labour courts determination of classification once the writ petition is entertained on the Letters Patent side.
Facts of the case:
The appellants were workmen employed with the first respondent, M.P. State Road Transport Corporation. They approached the labour court seeking classification as Booking Agents and directions for payment of wages for the period during which they had performed the duties of Booking Agents. In one appeal, the appellant sought classification as Traffic Supervisor-II on the ground that his duties were equivalent to that post, while other appellants sought similar benefits. The labour court granted the relief, but the learned Single Judge set aside the orders on the basis of the High Courts decision in Narain Singh Rathore. Letters Patent Appeals were subsequently filed, challenging the Single Judges order.
Findings of Court:
The Full Bench of the High Court held that clauses 2(i) and 2(vi) of the Annexure pertain only to classification at the entry stage and not to promotion. An employee temporarily posted on a higher post cannot claim the status of a permanent employee in that post under the classification rules. The court clarified that once an employee becomes entitled to permanent status, the classification provisions are exhausted, and further claims must be based on service conditions governing promotions. The High Courts reasoning was affirmed as sound and comprehensive.
Issues:
The primary issue was whether the writ appeal was maintainable on the Letters Patent side and whether the labour court had the jurisdiction to direct classification and payment of wages for duties performed in a higher post. The subsidiary issue was whether temporary performance of higher duties could give rise to a claim for permanent classification and corresponding emoluments under the standing orders.
Ratio Decidendi:
The classification provisions in the standing orders operate only at the entry stage and do not cover promotion or post-based claims. Temporary performance of higher duties attracts corresponding emoluments during the period of such performance, but it does not convert the employee into a permanent holder of the higher post. Jurisdiction under the Letters Patent side to interfere with labour court orders on classification is not available once the matter is entertained on the merits under the established procedure.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed with no costs.
JUDGMENT
Rajendra Babu, J.-The appellants before us are workmen on the establishment of the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation. In these appeals the workmen had approached the labour court for classification as Booking Agents and for payment of wages for different periods for which they had worked as such on the establishment of the first respondent. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 636 of 1998 sought to be classified as Traffic Supervisor-II on the ground that though he was holding the post of Booking Agent but was directed to discharge the duties of Sub-Depot Incharge which is equivalent to the post of Traffic Supervisor-II. The appellants in the other appeals also claimed a similar benefit. The labour court allowed the claim of the appellant. Writ petitions were preferred against the same. The learned Single Judge, following the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Narain Singh Rathore & Ors.1 allowed the writ petitions and set aside the orders made by the labour court. Letters Patent Appeals were preferred against the order made by the learned Single Judge in each of these cases either by a common or by a separate order quashing the order made by the labour court.
2. In this Court the principal contention urged on behalf of the appellants is that the writ appeal was maintainable on the Letters Patent side.
3 . This Court in Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankarprasad2, has explained the legal position in this respect after adverting to the decisions of this Court in Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai3; Ratnagiri District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Dinkar Kashinath Watve & Ors.4; and Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar & Ors. v. Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shaha & Ors.5. Therefore, it is no longer necessary for us to set out the law on the matter nor is it necessary to remand the case after setting aside the order made in the writ appeal to examine the case in the light of the decision of this Court.
4. However, we propose to consider these matters on merits as is done by the learned Single Judge.
5. The learned Single Judge followed the decision of the Full Bench in Narain Singh Rathore (supra) and, therefore, what is necessary to be considered in these cases is the correctness of the view expressed by the Full Bench therein.
6. The Full Bench held that under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Rules, 1963, clause 2(i) and (vi) of the Annexure to the said Rules pertains only to classification of employee which relates to classification at entry stage, that is, on the stage at which person enters employment and not to promotion stage. Employee posted temporarily on higher promotional post cannot claim status of permanent employee in the said post under clause 2 on the plea that what he is seeking is classification and not promotion. This decision accepted the correctness of the decision in K.K. Krishnan v. Industrial Court of M.P., Indore6.
7. After adverting to the decision in K.K. Krishnan s case in detail, this is what the Full Bench of the High Court in Narain Singh Rathore (supra) stated :
"Clause 2 of the Standing Orders in the Annexure to the rules deals with classification of employees. This is in relation to item No. (1) of the Schedule to the Act. It says that the employees should be classified into six categories, i.e., permanent, permanent seasonal employee, probationer, Badli, apprentice, temporary employee. It defines each of these six categories. A permanent employee is one who has completed six months satisfactory service in a clear vacancy in one or more posts whether as a probationer or otherwise or a person whose name has been entered in the muster roll and who is given a ticket of permanent employee. Temporary employee has been defined as an employee who has been employed for work which is essentially of a temporary character or who is temporarily employed as an additional employee in connection with temporary increase of the work of permanent nature. Where he is required to work continuously for six months, he shall be deemed to be a permanent employee. The definitions have to be construed in the light of the fact that it is part of the effort directed at classification of employees. Definition of permanent employee refers to an employee employed in a clear vacancy while the definition of temporary employee does not prefer to clear vacancy. Clause (3) deals with ticket and allied matters. Employees other than those belonging to clerical, supervisory or technical personnel shall be provided tickets which will bear the name of the Department, date of entry in service, his number, the record of daily attendance etc. Badli employee shall be provided Badli Card. Temporary employee shall be provided temporary card. Apprentice shall be provided with apprentice card." [pp. 967, 968].
"All the decisions of this Court referred to earlier are unanimous in regard to one aspect, namely, what is dealt with in clause (2) of the Annexure to the Rules is classification and not promotion. An employee can claim classification but not promotion by virtue of this clause. A probationer may be confirmed, a Badli may be absorbed and an apprentice may be regularly employed. He may become permanent employee. Once an employee becomes eligible or entitled for status as permanent employee he is entitled to the consequential classification. When the employee acquires the status of a permanent employee, so far as he is concerned, Clause (2) of Annexure to the rules would have worked itself out. There is no question of such permanent employee acquiring permanent status again under clause (2). Once he acquires the status of permanent employee, he is protected to the extent contemplated by law and the regulations or rules relating to service conditions. If the conditions of service provide for a channel of promotion, he is entitled to look forward to be considered for such promotion and if he is denied promotion, it may be open to him to ventilate his grievance in an appropriate forum. In other words, the classification contemplated in Item-I of Schedule to the Act and Clause (2) of the Annexure to the Rule is classification at a stage which could be spelled out from the classification contemplated namely, permanent, permanent seasonal, probationer, Badli, Apprentice and temporary. The stage is only the entry stage, i.e., the stage at which the person enters employment. The classification cannot relate to the stage of promotion or the promotion post which can be governed only by the service conditions applicable to the employees. Rules or Regulations framed by the Corporation providing for channel or promotion do not in any way detract from the Standing Orders and Clause (2) of the Annexure to the rules does not detract in any way from the scheme of promotion provided by the rules or regulations. To say that an employee who was asked to work on a higher post for a period on account of exigencies of situation is not asking for promotion and he is asking only for appropriate classification on the post on which he is working is to ignore both the scheme underlying the rules relating to classification and the promotion rules. An employee may be asked to work in a higher post for some time on account of administrative exigencies. He does not thereby acquire a right to the higher post, as long as he has not been promoted by the Competent Authority in accordance with the regulations or rules and on a consideration of all employees in the feeder categories who are in the field of choice. An employee who is not entitled to be considered for promotion or who is yet to be considered for promotion and therefore, cannot be deemed to have been promoted, cannot secure the same end by stating that what he is seeking is classification and not promotion. What cannot be achieved directly cannot be permitted to be achieved in an indirect manner. It is one thing to say that an employee who has been asked to work in a higher post temporarily must get the emoluments attached to the higher post; it is quite a different thing to say that he must be regarded as a permanent incumbent of the higher post by being classified as such. The question of exploitation and unfair labour practice does not arise since it will be the duty of the employer to pay him the emoluments attached to the higher post long as he discharges the duties attached to the higher post and on the failure of the employer, it will be open to the employee to enforce his claim. In a large organisation like the Corporation with offices and bus-stations spread over the vast expanse of the State, it may not always be possible, though it may be desirable, for the competent authority to keep a watchful vigil and take prompt action for filing up the promotional post on occurring of the vacancy. Officers in far off places may have to make temporary arrangements for discharge of the duties attached to the higher posts which fall vacant. They can only entrust the duties to an employee available locally who may not have the requisite seniority or even the eligibility for being considered for promotion. It is not in the scheme of clause (2) of the Annexure to the rules to convert such temporary arrangement into a permanent one. The scheme of classification spells out clearly the underlying intention that it is intended to apply to the entry stage and not to promotional post." [pp. 968, 969]
8. Under the relevant Standing Orders employees have been classified as permanent, permanent seasonal, probationer, Badlis, apprentices and temporary. A permanent employee has been defined to be an employee who has completed six months satisfactory service in a clear vacancy. Standing Order, therefore, relates to employment as such and not to category of posts in which a person is employed. There is a clear distinction between the nature of employment and the hierarchy of the post in which the person is employed. The relevant Standing Order categorises the nature of employment and it does not classify the individual employees in different posts according to the hierarchy created in a department. Thus, the employees have been classified according to the nature of their employment as permanent, permanent seasonal, probationer, Badlis, apprentices and temporary. 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 severed other employees because promotions are dependant 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 stop gap 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. Hence, if any other conclusion is reached, it would lead to disastrous consequences. Therefore, the line of reasoning adopted by the High Court is perfectly in order.
9. However, Dr. T.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants, dew our attention to the decision of the High Court in V.K. Jain & Anr. v. Kamal Singh Thausingh & Anr.7. In that case the workman concerned was working as Supervisor for nearly, 14 years but the Management had not given him either the post or pay of Supervisor. Therefore, the workman approached the labour court for directing the employer to classify him as Supervisor and grant him pay accordingly. It was contended on behalf of the Management that the workman was claiming promotion and, therefore, the labour court had no jurisdiction, the function being within the jurisdiction of the Management. It was held in that case that what the workman was asking for was not promotion but for appropriate classification under Rule 2 of the Standing Orders and that case was covered by Item Nos. (i) and (vi), Schedule II of the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules and the labour court had jurisdiction. In that case, there was no detailed consideration of the nature of the Standing Order 2 as has been done as closely as in K.K. Krishnan s case (supra) and Narain Singh Rathore s case (supra) wherein the entire scheme of the provision was considered. We have applied our mind to relevant provisions and the view of the High Court and we have also analysed the provisions vis-a-vis the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. We think, the view expressed by the High Court in this respect appears to be correct and calls for no interference as on all aspects on which the learned counsel for the appellants argued are covered by the passages quoted by us above. We think that the basis upon which the conclusions have been reached is sound. We further make it clear that for the periods for which the appellants had discharged their duties or are discharging their duties attached to the higher post, they should be paid emoluments as attached to that higher post.
10. Subject to what is stated above, these appeals deserve to be and are dismissed. No costs.
(N.K.R.) Appeals dismissed accordingly.
**************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Dwarika Prasad Tiwari v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2001(7) Supreme 48 : 2001 (7) JT 607 : AIR 2001 SC 2871 : 2001 LILR 386 : 2001 (2) LLJ 1234 : 2001 (91) FLR 494 : 2001 (4) SLR 383 : (2001) 8 SCC 322 : 2001 (2) SCSLJ 519
00046