»^-- ,) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASMJR PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0.2068 OF 2004 1. Stete of Chhatfegarh, thrQi^h the Secretary, Water Resources Oepartment, Mantralay Bhawan, Raipur, Chhatti^grh. 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Water R^ources Department, Raipur, ChhatUsgarh. tf> 3. Senior Geo Hydrologjst, DMsional Ground Water Survey Unit No.9, District Bilaspur, ChhaUsgarh. Versus 1. Sambhagiya Dainik Karyabhsrit Majdoor Sangh, through Maha Mantri, Tilak Nsgar, Bllaspur. 2. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bilaspur. CWrit petition under Article 226/227cf theConsfitutionof India) Single Bench : Hon'ble ShriSatish K. Agnihotri, J. Present Shri M.P.S. BhaUa, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/ p^itioners. Shri S.P. Kale, counsel for ttie respondent No.1. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 26" day of February, 2009) At ttie very outset, Shri BtaUa, leamed Dy. Govt, Advocate appearing for the State/pefifioners confines his submi^ion tothe grant of cnfference of wages since 9-5-2003 only. 2) Shri Bhatia submits ftat S'membecs of th®r^spondent No.1 union namely, Balmukund Tiwari, Boharan Lal and Ghansh^m Prasad Sahu were appointed on daily wages. TherespondentNo.1 has approached the Labour Court for redressal of the grievances of the members of the union as stated above. The Labour Court by order dated 5-4-2004 (Annexure-P/1) granted regularisation and difference of vrages with effect from 9-5-2(M3. Shri Bhafia further submits that in compliance of ttte said order, the services of the said members of the respondent No.1 union as stated above have been regularized. 3) Witt regard to difference of wages.Shri Bhatia submtts that since the said members of the respondent No.1 were daily vragers and their services were regularized bythe order ofthe LabourCQUrt,.N>ich could not ^,r:-\WS.,sftiV9V' ci •z-' have been granted by e Labour Court. They arenot entiUed to higher pay on the basis of regularisation with retrospective effect. 4) The law is very well setUed on ttiis issue. Appointment of daily wagers is cfe hors the constitutional scheme of the employment. It is further held by this Court in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mungeli vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bilaspur & Another (W.P.No.1247 of 1996) decided on 1-3-20)6 as under : "7....The daily wages emptoyees are paid wages on the basis of the work performed on day to day basis. There is no question of making any payment of back wages. The daity wages employees are required to be engaged on the basis of availablllty of work and are paid the wages on that basis. Thus, the impugned award to the extent of grant of back vrages is not sustalnable in law and the same deserves to be set asid®." 5) Having r^ard to the facts situation of the case and Iwking to the fact that the said members of the respondent No.1 unton as stated above have worked on daily wages and their services were regularized, the members of ttie respondent No.1 union are notentitled to any difference of wages. Even Shri Kale learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 submte that he is not claiming any difference of wages. 6) In view of the foregoing, the finding of the Labour Court with regard to difference of wages is liable to be set aside and it is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the petition is allowed to Iftat extent only. 7) Consequently, M.(W.).P.No.1861Q004 stands disposed of. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge