AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
As the similar issue is involved in this batch of writ petitions, therefore, they are heard analogously and decided by this common order.
All the petitioners have filed the present petitions being aggrieved by order dated 30.08.2016, passed by Chief Executive Officer, M.P. Council For
Vocational Education and Training (for short ‘M.P.C.V.E.T.’) by which their services have been discontinued and 133 Skill Development
Centres (for short ‘SDC’) in 43 districts have been directed to be closed.
That under the National Skill Development Scheme, in order to provide technical education and skill development to the uneducated youth, the State
Government through M.P.C.V.E.T. has decided to establish 133 SDC in entire Madhya Pradesh.
All the petitioners were appointed on contract basis as Managers, Trainers, Office Assistant-cum-Accountant or ClassIV employees, as per module
prepared for establishing SDC in the State. In each centre the post of one Manager, one Office Assistant-cum-Accountant, 4 Trainers and 2 Helpers
were sanctioned. Their qualification and remuneration were also fixed. Initially they were appointed for the period of 2 years on contract basis which
was extendable for a period of one year. Thereafter, a proposal was sent to extend the period of those who have completed 3 years of contract and
till then the Government shall not remove them.
After one year the M.P.C.V.E.T. has passed an order dated 16.05.2016 directing all the officials to terminate the services of the employees
working in 133 SDC and further decided to close down the centres. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, present writ petitions were filed.
By order dated 28.03.2017, this Court has granted interim protection to all the petitioners by permitted them to continue into service with payment of
salary by the Government as per contract.
The respondents filed a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench against the interim order. By order dated 05.02.2018, the Division Bench of this
Court has disposed of the Writ Appeal with following directions:
“1. The appellants shall not engage another contractual employee including outsourcing the services of Trainers.
In case a Trainer in a particular Trade is not required at a particular Centre, the appellants shall avail the services of such Trainers in the other Skill
Centers, subject to the consent of such Trainer to work in another center.
The services of the Trainer in the other Training Centers shall not be dispensed with unless the appellants find that services of the Trainer are not
required in any of the Centres and its need shall not arise in the near future.
But if in future, any Trainer is required in a particular Trade after dispensing the service of a Trainer, the Appellants shall re-engage the Trainers,
who were engaged at an earlier point of time.â€
After the aforesaid order, a W.P.No.17859/2017 pending before the Bench at Indore has been disposed of vide order dated 19.03.2018 with
observation that the order delivered by the Division Bench in W.A.No.418/2017 on 05.02.2018 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly, appearing for the respondents submit that the batch of present writ petitions be also disposed of in the light of the directions
given the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal No.418/2017.
At this stage, Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the respondents have decided to start the centres in different
name by appointing new contractual employees.
Shri Ganguly submits that the said order was passed before the decision in W.A.No.418/2017 but now after order dated 05.02.2018 passed in the
Writ Appeal, the respondents are bound by the directions given therein.
Shri Dubey further submits that the petitioners have not been paid the salary after the order dated 16.05.2016 despite they are working by virtue of
interim order.
Shri Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondentM.P.C.V.E.T. submits that, in this regard, the petitioners be directed to submit representations
individually to the competent authority.
In view of above, the petitioners are directed to submit individual representations specifying the period for which salary has not been paid. On such
representations being filed, respondents are directed to consider the representations and if the petitioners have not been paid the salary, the same be
paid to them.
Shri Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)
Act, 1961 are applicable to the respondent-Department. The petitioners were appointed after following prescribed procedure under the law and have
been working continuously from the year 2013 to 2016, hence, they are eligible for all statutory benefits available to the permanent workman as per
definition of ‘fixed term employee’.
Now in view of the order passed by the Division Bench, this issue is not liable to be decided in these petitions. As on today, there is no permanent
employee in these SDCs, hence, there cannot be any comparison and parity of their working hours, allowances and other benefits with the permanent
employees as the entire staff of these centres, including the petitioner, were appointed purely on contract basis for a fixed term period and their
services are governed under the terms of contract. If the petitioners want to avail the benefit of Standard Standing Orders, then they have the remedy
to approach the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
In view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.418/2017, the present writ petitions are also disposed of in the same
terms and conditions.
The order passed in Writ Appeal No.418/2017 dated 05.02.2018 shall be applicable in these writ petitions mutatis mutandis.
Let a copy of this order be kept in the record of the connected writ petitions.