Judgment:
1 W.P No.7716 of 2013 03.01.2014 Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission.
ORDER
On behalf of the petitioneRs.State authorities, this petition is directed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 7.7.2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Bench Rewa, in Appeal No.14/MPIR/2010 affirming the order dated 9.2.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sidhi in case No.12/MPIR/07, whereby allowing the petition of the respondent filed under section 65 of the Madhya Prdesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (in short `the Act') and the above mentioned state authorities were directed to pay the entire arrears of the salary of the husband of the respondent who was initially appointed on daily wages in the service of the petitioners but subsequently he was classified as permanent employee on the post of Sub Engineer from 26.7.1992 vide order dated 14.9.98 passed by the Labour Court.
2.
Initially the case was argued at length by the state counsel for admission of this petition but in view of the findings of para-5 of the impugned order of the appellate court on asking the counsel that after passing the order by the Labour court vide dated 14.9.98 whereby the husband of the respondent, namely, Sourabh Kumar Shrivastava was directed to be classified on the aforesaid post from 26.7.1992 with a further direction to pay him the salary accordingly as permanent employee of such post and such order was affirmed even in appeal and got finality then how the petitioneRs.state authorities has a right to challenge the question relating to the classification of the deceased Sourabh Kumar Shrivastava and if the authorities are estopped to challenge such question then what wrong has been committed by the Tribunal as well as by the appellate authority in passing the impugned ordeRs.on which, the petitioners counsel fairly submits that the state authorities are not in a position to explain such circumstances, however, he said that inspite the aforesaid order of classification, the aforesaid question could be re-examined by the tribunal 2 W.P No.7716 of 2013 and the appellate authority while dealing with the impugned application of respondent filed under section 65 of the Act and, in such premises, the subordinate tribunal and the appellate authority committed error in passing the impugned order and prayed to admit this petition.
3.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the arguments of the counsel, I have carefully gone through the available record and found that the aforesaid husband of the respondent said Sourabh Kumar Shrivastava was initially appointed in the department of the petitioners as Sub Engineer on daily wages but subsequently he raised his dispute for his classification before the Labour Court where his application was allowed and he was directed to be classified on the aforesaid post of Sub Engineer since 26.7.92 with a further direction to pay the salary as permanent employee of such post.
On filing the appeal by the State against the aforesaid order dated 14.9.98, the same was dismissed and such order has attained finality.
I am of the considered view that after attaining finality, the aforesaid earlier order is binding between the petitioners/authorities and the deceased employee Sourabh Kumar Shrivastava, and they have no right to make any defense in the impugned proceedings of the respondent filed under section 65 of the Act saying that the deceased was not the classified employee on the permanent post of Sub Engineer and, in such premises,I have not found any perversity, irregularity, illegality or anything against the propriety of the law in the order impugned either of the tribunal or the appellate authority which could be interfered in the writ jurisdiction of this court.
4.
Consequently, this petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.
(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL