IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4977 of 2000 SUMANJEE SRIVASTAVA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 7/ 29/8/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the State, with reference to the order dated 4.5.2006 submits that the petitioner has been paid the legitimate dues for the period he has worked. That he is not entitled to daily wages for the period that he has not worked. These are issues of facts which cannot be determined in a writ petition. Annexure-j to the supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents-1 to 7 is a reasoned order passed in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 4.5.2006 determining his ineligibility for wages for the period as claimed on the ground that he has not worked. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the same by filing an amendment application. As such, there is no occasion for this Court to consider this aspect of the matter any further. The writ application is disposed with liberty to the petitioner to file a - 2 - representation with details of his claim for arrears of wages which would be considered by the authorities appropriately, in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order. Insofar as the merits are concerned, the petitioner was a daily wage employee reinstated by the orders of a labour court. The status of a daily wager is precarious by its very nature. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order determing his status by the authorities when no allegations of a nature to warrant interference has been made. The application is dismissed with the liberty as aforesaid. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )