In Absence Of Prayer Can't Grant Relief For Classification, When Claim Is For Regularization: MP High Court In Industrial Dispute Case
While setting aside an industrial court's order, the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya High Court observed that in a claim for regularization, the Industrial Court should not have granted the relief for classification which had not been prayed for by the workman. In doing so the court, reiterated the "basic difference" between regularization and classification, referring to the Supreme...
While setting aside an industrial court's order, the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya High Court observed that in a claim for regularization, the Industrial Court should not have granted the relief for classification which had not been prayed for by the workman.
In doing so the court, reiterated the "basic difference" between regularization and classification, referring to the Supreme Court's decision which said that a classified employee is only entitled for minimum of the basic pay without any increment.
The single-judge bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia in its order thus observed, “Since, the case was never tried for classification, therefore a prejudice has been caused to the petitioner because the petitioner has been taken by surprise and relief which was never prayed for was granted by the Industrial Court.”
The petitioner workman had filed an application under Section 31 read with Section 61 of M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and prayed for regularization and not for classification. The Labour Court had tried the case in the light of relief claimed by the workman in his claim i.e. regularization. However, the Bhopal bench of the Industrial Court while deciding the appeal held that the workman is "entitled for classification with regular basic pay-scale and arrears".
The high court said that the case was never filed for classification and the Industrial Court should not have granted the relief which was never prayed by the workman. The high court further stated that there is a basic difference between regularization and classification.
"Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that in absence of claim for classification, the Industrial Court should not have granted the relief of classification," the court observed.
Relying on the judgement of Supreme Court in Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray and Ors. (2017) wherein it was observed that a classified employee is only entitled for minimum of the basic pay without any increment, Justice Ahluwalia in the present case concluded that the direction given by the Industrial Court to grant regular pay-scale with arrear was also contrary to the aforesaid judgement given by the Apex court.
Therefore, the court set aside the order passed by the Industrial Court and remanded the matter back to Labour Court, Betul.
Case Title: CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER VERSUS LAXMI NARAYAN AND OTHERS, WRIT PETITION No. 2382 of 2006