t1 • ^;:; \ '*r is THE :Hi<a^,GeB®^E,.^TffiaE@B'®^:8^:;..33aBfi^ ' •• - •^•(EetiMCTR:;'Ua8er.-Artafelies;"226»i'®27 -@S~We':: GBas!feitatti.oa,.ef .laaia). .•,••.^:.'^^ •;; • 1.'.' :.f';::/'''-'l::'..a£^.';^&^:^ ;. ^^^hst^ SESIXI@SSSS :j''r'^.^lthe-^esuteivft:a«|ri.B«ejE',^.''^''-^".' • ^i , ,1 -': '• .,' •. •• Uatess^ ReS(B(u;^s..lSi!iB»6syBe@arfcmeB't,'' -"',' :• .'" . '; K&sfi.^Bs'aiS. '.•(I©'t*:a)•'Ms'tet* ' Bi.I:as?ur», ^ ; :'•,; ;.2-...St&^^^laa^.^a E»,^:_,::,/_ ; ':..1'1 ;.:' '.' '.•.Wate^..''l^GSgi?e^?;^r<re^'^&;;:l^^rileB;\^ •.•Kaa^JL';^a^''(KBtyta)^Bl.s-tKt.^BilasinB'. •• ..: . i ^ ; •-VSrsits-:-,' '',':•..,.-.- :\1:\ -' ,-• ''J aSSQWBSSS ^^,: s.^'.l, .By.^X^abtf^'.aiinn^si^eB,,','^1,^ \ :;:- • •:; 1^::1'; Otat^sbSFaEb.'Sfigtoit'.'BaIni.k Veti'an ^: •;• ,i '. .•\:KariaaaMarj;_5aB9fa..%sfet:,.;;IBi..l.'agpur.l''l~..^; ! 1; '-2..: 'nae1 %isst]aiBS /©ffieer,1;l<jiboHr;.QMirt w. : 1"- 11: ". •^ ,"^'" •'1 :: .:•::,v -.: •„:3. ':.SteE4,':S.fit.^Bubeys. SeffiettaJ,, ^SeerstaB^, ..'' ^. 1 :••'.':,' , ,.':/C^;a*as^^^i^ I^,l"Wageis;',Kaz^Etr^Saa3fa. -•.' .••••BS.sVSr'.'Sil.asy&s^^..^' '-'>;:: .'• :: :ii:'- • ':>.'.:' SIBSSStW^ ^.-:&^<a^;226/22^\QS/'T ::'^ Ot,;lH@lS*~^':" .' / -~'.',''. K,,'^:-~T^'t ; ^ w B'l ;-l«^h ^- le y <2^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS WRITPETITIONNo. 3061 of 1996 The State ofM.P. & Others. VERSUS Dy. Labour Conunissioner & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DMDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J, Present: Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/petitioners. Shri S.P.Kale, Advocate for fhe respondent No. 3. ORDER(ORAL) . (Passed on 07th day of November, 2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 30 April, 1996 (Annexure P/l), passed by the respondent No. 2 in Case No. 15/IDA/85(Ref), whereby the petitioner was directed to reinstate the employees i.e. the members of respondent No. 3 with back-wages. - - 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the instant petition was filed on 30 July, 1996, challenging the order of reinstatement and grant of back wages, as aforestated. However, subsequently, the members of respondent No. 3 have been remstated and their services have been regularized vide order dated 4 June, 2003,11 June, 2003 and 27th December, 2009 (Annexure R/l colly.) by the petitioners. 3. Shri Kale, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 fairly admits that the members ofthe resp'ondent No. 3 have been remstated and thereafter regularized in service but the back-wages have not been paid for the period they were out ofjob. "V, ,. -;: ^ 'i-'. ss^m ;.^e's^^i!^i'? 7. Shri Thakur, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the members ofthe respondent No. 3, being daily wages employees are even ofherwise not entitled to back-wages on the principle of "no work, no pay". I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The Labour Court Uas directed reinstatement with full back-wages on fhe ground that the petitioners have not complied with the provisions of section 25-F ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has completely ignored the fact that fhe members of the respondent No. 3 were appointed on daily-wages basis. When the work ofthe first'phase of Arpa Dam Project came to an end, no work was available for them and as such, the services offhe members ofthe respondent No. 3 came to an end. Since the members of the respondent No. 3 have been reinstated in service aud fhereafter regularized, leamed counsel for the petitioners do not press the poiut ofreinstatement. Qn the question of back-wages, the Labour Court has not examined the necessary relevant fact asto whether the members ofthe respondent No. 3 were gainfully employed elsewhere during the period they were out of service and secondly, no finding has been recorded in this aspect. Thus, the concept of grant of back-wages as a natural consequence has undergone a change. The employees are not entitled to 100% back-wages, as natural consequence it depends on the facts and circimistances of fhe case. In the present case, there is nothing on.record which entitles grant of 100% back-wages to the respondent No. 3. Thus, granting of 100% back- wages is unjust and illegal. ^ "-<. ^ .-•S3P* f ,/-'-•%, i 1 ^^::^ ^s.,vst,^ ,ii;;fe.<;;?^^^ :.'.'i-'^''i^^tsS3S?: 8. The petitioners have already reinstated and regularised the services ofthe members of the respondent No. 3. As far as question of grant of back wages is concemed, it is well settled that the daily wages employees are paid wages on the basis ofthe work performed on day to day basis. The daily. wages employees are required to be engaged on the basis of availability of work and are paid the wages on that basis. Thus, fhe impugned order to the extent of grant ofback-wages is not sustainable m law and the same deserves to be set aside. 9. In view ofthe above, the petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. _SdA satisbK.Agn,b^i Judge Amit ^.