IN THE HIGH COURT OF_MflDI-IYfi PRftDESH BT JfiBALPUI iaaaststs j^.^ig8^^ URIT PETITION N0 . MM', OF 1996 PETITIONER RESPONDE^4TS Krishi Upaj Mandi Sami.ti., MUNGE::L.I, through its Secretary, Shri K.M. Bhctrgava, son of' Shri B. N. aaed about 46 ye.ars, cu" MUNGELI, DISTRICT nargava residenl BILASEyR VERSUS Prssiding Offieer, Court, BILflSPUR. Latiouf £.^. Shri Rafl'it'shwar Prasad Yadav son ot Shri Rldhi Ruffii, resident ot Village & Past PATHftRIfl, DISTRICT BILASPUR. y' PETITION UNDER fiRTICLES 226/2S7 QF THE CaNSTITUTION OF INDIA Particulars of the petitioner A F I'i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU W.P. No. 1247 of 1996 Petitioner Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Muugeli Versus Respondents Presiding Officer, Labour Conrt, Bilaspui- & anotlier Sia^e Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotrl. Miss Suuita Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R. S. Patel, Advocate for fhe Respondent No, 2, ORAL ORDER (lat Mareh, 2006) The folloiviag order offhe Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotrl, J. 1. The Respondent No.2 (Sttri Rameshwar Prasad Yadav) was einployed by the petitioner on daily wages basis on the post of Chowkidar ua the year 1984. He contiaiied as Daily Wages Einployee tiU he was discontinued from services, vide order dated 26.1.1991. The respondent No.2, being aggrieved, raised a dispute befere the Depuly Laboiir coirunissioner, Chbatdsgarh region, Raipur. The Deputy Labour Coaunissioner, Raipur by his order No. 109 dated 11.10.1991,referred the disputed to the Labour Court, BOaspur under fhe Indiistrial Disputes Act. The Reference Case was registered as 89/I.D.A./91. 2. Labour Court by its award dated 23.1.1996 caine to the conclusion that the Respondent No.2 has worked for more than 240 days iu fhe preceding year, as the Respondent No.2 has categorically stated that he had worked continuoiisly. The petitioner could not controvert the averments niade by the ii-^s^^i^^r^ Respondent No.2. The petitioner further failed to ffle aay docuineataiy evidence i.e. related inuster roU, attendance register etc. The Labour Coiut has accoidiagly recorded that the petitioner has worked continiiously on daily wages basis. Accorduigly fhe Laboiir Court by award answered the reference that the tennination of the service of the Respondent No.2 is improper and iUegai. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the Respondent No.2 in service wifh fuU back wages and consequential benefits. Beiag aggrieved 'the petitioner has ffled this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the award dated 23.1.1996, passed by the Labour Court on the ground that the Respondent No.2 has not pn3ved fhat he had worked for more than 240 days in. the preceding year and earUer, aad as such, the Respondent No.2 was not entifled to any reUef. Learaed counsel appearing for the petitioner subinits that fhe petitioaer beiag daily wages einployee is even otherwise not entitled to back wages on the pnnciple of 'no work, no pay'. Only the regular employees are entifled to consequential benefits uicluding back wages, in case the tennination order is set aside or is declared as invaUd by the Court. This was not the case of the Respondent No.2 fhat he was working on regular basis agakist aay vacaat post. Mr. R. S. Patel, leamed counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2, per contra, submits fhat tfae Respondent No.2 has proved his case up to fhe hilt that he has worked for inore than 240 days in the preceding year and earlier also. The petitioner had 3^ gggna.ai"' tesaaigaBSIStS ^^ts^!I^I not submitted any evidence to coatrovert the siibmissions ofthe Respondent No.2. 6. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the record appended to the petition and the retum. 7. I have not fouud aay perversity or iUegality nfthe impugned award as the imipugned award was passed on fhe basis of the proper evidence and after applyiag the proper law to the case. So far as fhe question of back wages is concemed, aduiittedly the Respondent No.2 was einployed on daily wages an.d tiie Respondent No.2 coatinued to work on the post of Chowkidar. The Respondent No.2 had not clauued any regular appointment. The dafly wages einployees are paid wages on the basis of the work performed on day to day basis. There is no question of inaking aay payinent ofback w^es. The daily wages einployees are reqaired to be engaged on fhe basis of avaUability of work aad are paid the wages on fhat basis, Thus, fhe impugiied award to the extent of graut ofback wages is not sustainable ui law aad fhe sanie deserves to be set aside. 8. The petition is accordingly, partty allowed to fhe above extent. The order of fhe Labour Court is inaintained so far as reiastateinent is coiicemed. However, the orier of paynient of back ws^es and consequential benefits is set aside and quashed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur