^as^ \w^ /esa^ SSB^ & M GQ' •c 3 Q ^ ^~t " ^-f M 1 f~^ ^Au.( -b 2 60 b t+-< 'tSS iu 1) wu o C.I w Vmn^ . r^< ^' !-( r/1 v~t o 4-i ^ru) M r"> h' <y^"' ^ty tU ^ 'u Qw A-d ^^ • T-< Tuau) ^nr^ ^.9 ^ ri ^ -^nw^ ,2^ 8o »lf—1 m •r^ ^"*\0 ^ 1/' v m T*-( »«-< 1 <u Q Mi .0 T~~^ ^o <M M ^ ro u bilvri^/ ? ( w 1—I o T"( w. Q ^s ^/ ^ 1 I BSM^ mOH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER WRTT PETmON (L) No. 5440 of2010 Lalaram. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofC.G. & Others. WRTT PETniON UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONS'ITTUTIDN OTTND1A SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asimhotri. J. Present: Sfari Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Sfari A.V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDERfURAL) (Passed on 05al day of January, 2011) 1. Grievance of the petitioner is that vide the impugned order dated 5.10.2008 passed in Case No. 3I/IDA/2005(Ref), passed by the Presiding QfBcer cum Labour Coiat under the I.D. Aet, yanting of backwages has been denied while direeting reinstatement of the petitioner. 2. Leamed counsel appearing tbr the petitioner submite that as a matter of consequential relief, the petitioner is entitled to at least 50% back- wages wjien once it has, been held that retrenchment ofthe petitioner was illegal and improper. 3. On the other hand, Shri Shridhar, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing fbr the State/respondents submits that Ifae petitioner was engaged as per the requirement of work as daily wager. Since he was not on the regular establishment, the petitioner was entitled to salary only for the period he was engaged in the work. The leamed Court below has ri^itly declined to graut backwages to the petitioner, thou^i continuity of service has been granted in favour of the petitiona". Further, it was not the case of the petitioner betore tiie Court below that 1fae petitiona- was not gainfiilly employed elsewhere during absence &om service. 4. Having considered submissions of leamed eounsel for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is esident Ihat the petitioner has failed to establish tfaat Ihe petitioner was not gainfully employed elsewhere during flie period ofretrenchment. Qn the question asto whether he was engaged on daily wages or otherwise, no finding can be recorded as the petitioner has suceeeded before the Court below on the basis he had completed 240 days m Ae , preeeding year. The leamed Court below has fiirther yanfed , continuity of service while grantmg reiiistatement. 5. Even otherwise, consideration tor reinstatemeut under the provisions oflaboiu- law is not regularization ofdaily wager, buton the basis of contmuation of service for 240 days in the preceding year. It is also not found in the impugned order ftat he was on regular establistament to claim wages forthe period he had not worked. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any grotMid wan-anting interfereace with the impugned order in exa'cise ofpower under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. There is no perversity, irregularity or illegality in Ihe iinpugped order. 7. Aceordingly, ihe petition is dismissed. No order Mtocoste^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit