,.rt^s~"^. AFff w^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wrrt^PetitioaNo,J077.of2Q05 PETITIQNERS : 1. Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Civil Suppiies Coiporatioii, Raipur (CG). 2. District Manager, Clihattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation, Bilaspur (CG). "•flTTa^ &E.SPONDENTS : 1. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Bilaspur. 2. Salik Rain Yadav S./o Shri D.R. Yadav R/o Bandhwapara, Behmd SECL Cplony, Bilaspur (CG). ^- (WRTf PE'HTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'Me Alr. Satish K. Agniliotri, J.) Present : SliriN.K. Vyas, Advocate forthepetitioners. Smt. Smita Ghai, Paiel Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 19"' day ofFebruar^', 2009) 1. Vr'ith the consent ofthe parties. the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. Notice was issued on 23.03.2005. Respondent No. 2 declmed to Siccept the notice on 29.04.2004, thus, services is complete. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners subniits that Ihe inipugned order dated 18.09.2004 (Annexure P./l), passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur, ia case No. 31/l.D.A. 2002/Reterence, is perverse aad bad in law. 4. Adniittediy, the respondent No. 2 (applicant therein) was a dai!y wager. His appointment was not in accordance with coiistitutional scheme of empioyment. The respondent No. 2 was engaged on 03.05.2000 pureiy osi tempojary basis and posted in the Regional OfBce of M.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation and diseontinued from the serflce on 17.04.2001. The leanied Judge, without recording findings, as to whether the petitioner has worked tbr 240 days or not, directed to reinstate and regularize the petitioner on fhe post ofregular Driver bv the uitpuaied order dated 18.09.2004. S!1!JT"M"' •;.%f i,li':i- ;<*--. T^ l^ o. 7. Despite notice, the respondent No. 2 declmed to accept notice and as such serv'ice ofnotice is complete. I have heard leained counsel appearing for the petitioners, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It appeara that, tlie leaiiied Judge has not examined the case under well settled positions of law. Firstly, fhe daily wager who has appointed dehorse the constitutional scheme of employment, is not entitled to reuistatement, continuation or reguiarization. The serviees of the daily wager caa come to end at aiiy day whenever his . ^ •• • , services are not required. If appointttient itself is not in accordance with constitutional scheme of empioyinent, the daily wager cannot make a grievance against his termination. Secondly, even if, Section 25 F of the Industt'ial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Aet, 1947') is invoked, the petitioner may be entitled to get retrenchment compensation ifthe petitioner has worked for more than 240 days or more iii one year, but no findmgs has been recorded by the leamed Judge. The Supreme Court, in the matter ofSecretarv', State ofKamataka aiid others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others observed in para 47 as under: "47. When a person enters a temporaiy emplo>'ment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant mles or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporar^', casual or contractual m nature. Such a pereoa cannot iavoke the theoiy of legitimate expeetation for being confiimed in the post whea an appointment to the post could be made only by followmg a proper proeedure for selection and in cases concemed, in consultation with the Public Serv-ice Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation caimot be suceessfully advanced by temporai'y, contractua! or casual employees. It cannot also be held that fhe State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the ibeory cannot be invoked to seek a positive reliefofbeing made permanent in the post." 2006 (4) SCC i ^^^^^s£:f 8. In tlie mailer ofladian Dm.gs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen. Lidian Drugs & Phannaceuticals Ltd. , the Supreme Court obsen''ed as under: "34.Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any dai'y-wager to seek regularization. Regularization can only be done in accordance with the ruies and not dehorse tfie rules. 35.In Surinder Smgh Jamwal (Dr.) v. State ofJ&K it was held tliat ad hoc appointment does not giye any right for regularization as regularization is govemed by the statutorv' mles." 9. The obsen'ations made hereiiiabove'in cases (Supra), with approval, tiie ^ Supreme Court in the matter of Officlal Liquidator Vs. Dayanaiid and others has fiirther explained about the rights of the daily wagers and regularization. Para 70 reads as under: "70. The Shift iti the Court's approach became more proniinent in A. Umaraii v. Coop. Societies, decided by a ihree-Judge Bench, vvherein it was faeld that the State camiot iiivoke Article 162 oftlie Constitation for regularization of the appointinents made in violation of the maiidatoiy statutory provisions. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is allowed. The impugned order 18.09.2004 (Armeyare P/l) passsd by the Labour Court, Bilaspur, in case No. 31/I.D.A. 2002/Reference, is hereby quashed. No order asto costs. 11. Coiisequently, M(W)P No. 865/05, stands disposed of. ^—-— i- ' ^^^ \ Judge s • - 2007 (I) SCC 408 3 (2008) 10 SCC 1 -