m'sv:ss&s. & '•:S?' -'"-si S \. w^/r ,'::-•.• .-^^ ki-ff^y 'w --' <^ ^FR HIG-H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petiyon No. .3413 of 2003 Ftetitiouer Harishaiikar @ Harirain, S\o Dabulal, R\o IIatoud, P.S Kasdol, Disstrct, Ralpur (C.G.) Versus Kespondents; 1. 'i'he Htate of C'hhattisgarh, Through, Superintendent Bngmeef, Water resources board, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Bxccutivc cnguiccr, Coastructioa, Uivision, Water resources department, Baloda Bazar, Uist. Kaipur (0,0.) 3. Sub UivKional Officer, Ualar Caoal, Sub divisioa Kasdol, Tahsil Kasdoi, Uisst- Raipui<C.G.). WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLB 226/227 OF THE CQ»8-nTin"IONOFiB!DIA Sis,gle Beach: Hon'blc Mr. Justicc Satish K. Agaihotri. Shri S. C. Venna, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, PaBel Lawyer for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on this 29th day of,}ii!y, 2008) 1. The petitioner, b;v this petition, impugns the order dated 26.7.2003, passed by the Industrial Court in Civil Appeal No. 155/M.P.I.R. Act/A-Il/2001, whereby his appeal for grant ofback waaes haa been disinissed. 2. The brief fe.cts, in nutshell, are that the petitiouer h»l filed an appUcation beforc the Labour Court, Raipur for his reuistatement iri serrice. The case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that he was appoiuted on work w.e.f. l.1.1985 aad his semces was discontiDLued/terminated on 1.8.1994, without assigning any reasoa and wifhout foUowing the procedure established by law. ,,';i'!(» .y? ^/ ^••^ .3'^. As the decismn of the respoadents was iUegal and unreasonable, fhe petitioner be remstated m servicc with back wages. 3. The respondents did not ch.oose to produce any witness or documeat ta rebuttal. The Labour Court by order dated 10.5.2001, passed ia Case No. 194/M.P.I.R. Act/95, taking iuto consideratk>n ttie fact fhat fhere is no rebuttal by fKe reapondents to the statenient+ nf the petitioner givea iu fhLC Court directed for reiiistatement ofthe petitioner in service wittiout back wages. 4. Being aggriieved by fhe order dated 10.5.2001, fhe petitsoner preferred an appeal before the ladustrial Court for grant of back wages. Learaed Industrial Court vMe oider dated 26.7.2003, passed ia Ciwl Appeal No. 155/M.P.I.R.Act/A-II/200l, dismissed fhe appeal, holding ttiat the petitioner, being a daily wage worker, is not entitled to back wages on fhe basis of the principle of 'no work no pay'. Beiug aggrieved by fhe order dated 26.7.2003, fhe petitioner tsas ffled fhis petition for graat ofbackwages. 5. Leanaed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner submits fhat the petitioiier is entitled to back wages on his reinstateinent as there was no fault on ftie part of the petitioner, fhe termmation of the petitiouer was wifhout asaigDing aay reasoa and wifhout foBowiag the principfcs ofaaturaljustice. 6. Learaed counsel aopeariaa for fhe respondents submits fhat mitiaUy fhe petitioaer was engaged in the establishment of ftie Tespoiident No.3 as dsaty wages Labour. On 1.8.1994 the services of the petitiouer was termiuated on account of aon-availabflity of work. The petitioner was being engaged, tinffi to tuae, &s and wh.en work was avaflable for Tiim. Being a daily wager the petitioner is i.eS-'SSS': ''^'^ys^^c:-~" Thakur not entitied to back vvages on the basis ofthe prmciple of'no work no pay'. 7. I have heard leamed counsel appearfag for the parties and perused tiie docusuents and returu appended thereto. 8. The issue asto whefher daily wages eiaployee is entMed to back wages is no longer res iategra as tiie persons appoiuted on daily wages basis, dehors the constitutional scheice of employmeat, have no rigbt to the post or to reinstatement or contiauatiou ia service. Admittedly, the appoiatment ofthe petitiouer was not legal and vaUd as it was ia violation of the Articles 14 aad 16 of fhe Coastitution of India <Scc Stats of Karnata&a & others Vs. Uma Devi & others1). 9. The daily wages einployees are paid wages on fhe basis ofthe work performed on day to day basis. There is no questioa of makmg any payment ofback wages. The daily wages employees are required to be eugaged on the basis of avaflability of work and are paid the wages on that basis. Thus, thc iiapugDed order, declming to eraut back wages is justified. 10. In view ofthe forcgoing, as the petitioner has ao r^ht to the post, the Labour Court directed his reinstatemeD.t ia service without back wages and the appeal preferred by tfae petitioner has been dismissed b;y the Iiidustrial Court for grant of back wages on the principk of'no work, no pay', thus the piayer for graat ofback wages is iriisconceived, and deserves to be rejected. 11. The petition is dismissed, accordingly. Sd/- Satfsh K. Agnihotri Judge e- (auu&j 4 B.U.U. i