Supreme Court Upholds Permanent Employee Status of Temporary Worker: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kumari Arati Saxena (26 September 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 797

Judges: A.S. Bopanna, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can a temporary employee become a permanent employee by working for more than six months on a vacant post? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a labor dispute from Madhya Pradesh. The core issue was whether a temporary employee, who had worked for more than six months on a vacant post, could be deemed a permanent employee under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which had ruled in favor of the employee. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy.

Case Background

The respondent, Kumari Arati Saxena, was initially appointed as a Hindi Typist on daily wages on June 5, 1992, by the State of Madhya Pradesh. She later sought to be categorized as a permanent employee with the salary structure of a Junior Division Clerk. The State of Madhya Pradesh contended that her initial appointment was not against a clear vacancy and therefore, she was not entitled to be considered a permanent employee. The Labour Court, however, found that she had worked for more than six months continuously on a vacant post of Typist-Lower Division Clerk.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior, ruled in favor of Kumari Arati Saxena, concluding that she was entitled to be considered a permanent employee under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed this decision, but the Appellate Authority upheld the Labour Court’s order. The State then approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, which also dismissed the appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963, specifically Standing Order 2(vi). This provision states that a temporary employee who has worked for more than six months continuously on a vacant post is deemed to be a permanent employee. The respondent had filed an application under Sections 31, 61 and 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, seeking permanent status.

The relevant provision from the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963, Standing Order 2(vi) states:

“…a temporary employee who has worked for more than six months continuously on a vacant post is deemed to be a permanent employee.”

Arguments

The State of Madhya Pradesh argued that the respondent’s initial appointment was not against a clear vacancy and, therefore, she could not claim permanent employee status. They contended that Standing Order 2(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963, requires that a permanent employee be appointed against a vacant post, and since the respondent was initially appointed as a daily wage worker, she could not be considered a permanent employee.

The respondent, Kumari Arati Saxena, argued that she had worked for more than six months continuously on a vacant post, which, under the exception provided in Standing Order 2(vi) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963, entitled her to be deemed a permanent employee.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

• Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the Labour Court’s decision to grant permanent employee status to the respondent, considering she had worked for more than six months on a vacant post as a temporary employee.
• Whether the High Court was justified in directing that the respondent be classified as a Hindi Stenographer w.e.f. 27.11.1999 based on the order dated 17.11.2004.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court primarily relied on the factual findings of the lower courts and the specific provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the factual finding of the Labour Court that the respondent had worked for more than six months continuously on a vacant post. The Court emphasized that the Labour Court’s finding of fact was not perverse and, therefore, did not warrant interference. The Court also took into account the long service rendered by the respondent.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the application of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963, specifically Standing Order 2(vi). The Court also considered the fact that the respondent had rendered long and satisfactory service.

Key Takeaways

• A temporary employee in Madhya Pradesh who works for more than six months continuously on a vacant post is deemed a permanent employee.
• Factual findings of the Labour Court are given significant weight and are not easily overturned by higher courts unless found to be perverse.
• Long and satisfactory service is a factor that can be considered in determining the status of an employee.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that all service benefits payable to the respondent should be computed and paid expeditiously.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a temporary employee who has worked for more than six months continuously on a vacant post is deemed a permanent employee under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. This judgment reinforces the importance of the factual findings of the Labour Court and the application of the relevant standing orders in determining the status of an employee.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which had ruled in favor of Kumari Arati Saxena. The Court clarified that the respondent’s permanent status was justified based on her long service and the factual finding that she had worked for more than six months on a vacant post, making her eligible for permanent status under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. The court also clarified that the benefit of being classified as a Hindi Stenographer was not solely based on the order dated 17.11.2004, but also on her long and satisfactory service in that post after being considered a permanent typist.