IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10676 of 2001 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Girija Nand Jha, the Executive Engineer [Mechanical], Division II, Birpur. . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, PURNEA. 2. Shri Man Mohan Jha, s/o late Amar Jha, r/o Ghotpur, P.O: Ghotpur, Dist.: Saharsa. . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 7/ 11.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. An interlocutory application has been filed by respondent no.2 being I.A. No. 1959 of 2009. In the interlocutory application, the respondent has prayed for grant of relief in view of Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As this Court is disposing of the main writ application, as such no separate order need be passed in the interlocutory application and the same stands disposed of. The State of Bihar has filed this application for quashing the award dated 03.10.2000 (Annexure-2) given by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Purnea whereby he directed the Management to release pay to respondent no.2 and to pay him full back wages for the periods he has worked and had remained idle. The Tribunal had come to the finding that petitioner has worked for continuously more than two years and as such would be entitled to the benefit under Section 25 (F) of the Act. I do not find any cogent material for disturbing the aforesaid order, as such the submission made by the State of Bihar in this respect is not acceptable. The second point raised by the State that the petitioner being a daily wager would not be entitled to the relief under Section - 2 - 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in view of the Division Bench Order of this Court passed in the case of Sanjay Kumar Tiwary & Ors Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2008 (2) PLJR 265. Learned counsel for the State submits that after noticing Section 2 (oo) (bb) and 25(F) of the Act the Division Bench held that ‘termination of a casual worker on a daily wage does not give rise to an industrial dispute’, as such termination of such persons would not attract the provisions of Section 25 (F) of the Act. Counsel for respondent no.2 states that the Act would fully also apply to him. He has relied upon a decision in the case of Management of Standard Motor Products of India Limited Vs. A. Parthasarthy & Another reported in 1985 (IV) SCC 78. After hearing the parties, I remit the matter to the Tribunal to consider whether the case of respondent no.2 is hit by decision rendered in the case of Sanjay Kumar Tiwary & Ors Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2008 (2) PLJR 265. The Tribunal would pass fresh award within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as it is an old matter. The State /Management is directed to pay back wages for which the petitioner has worked, within a period of two months from today, otherwise he would be entitled to an interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the non- paid amount. With the aforesaid direction, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)