^ ^N^ HIGHCQURT_OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESFONDENTS V/ritPetitionNo. 6520 of2005 Prahalad Singh S/o Bhukhu Aged about 47 years, R/o Village Jagmahant, Post Mahant, Tah. & Distt. Janjgir(CG). VERSUS' . ' 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Department of Transportation, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 2. Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarfa Iiifrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Bust Stand Bilaspur (CG). 3. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bilaspiir (CG). (WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTtCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUnON OF DMDIA) fSB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Aenihotri, J.) Present : Shri Asholc Patil, Advocate fbr the petitioner. Shn M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Govf. Advocate for the State. Shri Pradeep Saxena, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ORALORDER (Passed OM 5 day ofMarch, With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Truck Driver, purely on temporary andseasonal basis tbr traiisportation of forest goodsw.e.f. 01.02.1985 (Amiexure P/2). Thereafter, according to petitioner, he continues in the same capacity. Witiiout producmg a copy ofremovalbrderfromfhe service as engagement ofthe petitioner was on temporary basis and seasonal, it appears that no order has been passsd, tlie petitioner approached fhe Labour Court. The Labour Court, by order dated 28.05.1999 (Aimexure P/4), holdmg that tfae punishment was excessive, directed r.einstatement oftfaepetitioner without backwages. The petitioner was thereafter reinstated pursuant to the order Sattu 4. passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner avers in para 6.4 that the petitioner was agam removed from service unexpectedly in October, 2002, without affording an opportumty ofhearing. Shri Bhatia, leamed counsel appearing for the State submits that the subsequent order ofthe Labour Court passedon 28.05.1999 (Annexure P/4), has been quashed by the Industrial Court by order dated 29.06.2005 (Annexure P/l). Be that as it may, fhe order dated 28.05.1999 (Annexure P/4), passed by the Labour Court, has ah-eady been complied wifh and the petitioner was remstated on temporarily and seasonal basis. The petitioner fhereafter was again removed from service admittedly m October, 2002, which is not under challenge inthis petition. Thwe is no subsistence in this petition. Even otfaerwise, the daily wager who was appointed dehors the eonstitutional scheme of employmenf, is not entitled to reinstatement, continuation or regularization. The services of a daily wager can come to end at any day whenever his services are not required. If appointment itself is not in accordance with constitutional scheme of employment, Ihe daily wager cannot make a grievance against his tennination. (See Secretary, State of Kamataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others, IndianDrugs & Phannaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Worfcmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and OfGcial Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others ). For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed; No order asto costs. Sd/. •JUdge ' 2006 (4) SCC 1 ' 2007 (1) SCC 408 3(200S)10SCC1