High Court Upholds Award Classifying Daily Wager as Permanent Employee Under Standing Orders Absent Statutory Exemption

The respondent, a daily wager employed since November 30, 2011, sought classification as a permanent employee.

The Labour Court Sagar, vide award dated July 21, 2015, directed the petitioner (Nagar Palik Nigam Sagar) to classify the respondent as a permanent employee in the capacity of Sahayak Grade-III/Computer Operator.

The petitioner challenged this award, contending that the respondent was not engaged against a clear vacant post and that the Standing Orders were inapplicable to the Municipal Corporation.

Initially disposed of on September 17, 2019, the petition was restored after the petitioner successfully sought a review on the grounds that a specific resolution by the Mayor-in-Council did not include the respondent's name.

1. Whether the respondent was entitled to classification as a permanent employee under the Standard Standing Orders by virtue of completing six months of service.

2. Whether the Labour Court’s award suffered from any jurisdictional error or illegality warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961, and Clause 2(6) of the Standard Standing Orders read with Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963, which dictate the classification of employees as permanent upon completion of six months of satisfactory service.

State Government Circular dated October 7, 2016, regarding the regularization of daily wagers.

Precedent set in Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar vs. Paschim Gujrat Vij Company Ltd. & Anr., which restricts the High Court's power under Article 227 to cases of serious errors of law or findings suffering from error apparent on the record, prohibiting the reappreciation of evidence as an appellate court.

The Court observed that the Labour Court had meticulously appreciated the evidence, noting the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and continued beyond six months after December 30, 2011.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s objection regarding the inapplicability of the Standing Orders, as the petitioner failed to produce any notification seeking exemption from the Act.

The Court found that the Labour Court's findings in paragraphs 9 through 13 of the impugned award were based on cogent evidence and sound reasoning.

Applying the Iswarlal doctrine, the High Court determined that there was no "clear error of law" or "error apparent on record" that justified overturning the Labour Court's findings of fact.

The respondent is entitled to be classified as a permanent employee as per the original award; consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed.