//\r^\^<^^) ^^^ ^^^'" A^'9< SINGLE BENCH EN THE fflGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH <• ,...-" . WritPetitionNo.4°-50) of2005 ' Petitioner: ^ State of Chhattisgarh, through the Executive Engineer, Department of PWD Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon (CG) Versus Respondents: 1. Yashwant Ku^imis^S/o Shri Jailal., aged about 31 years, R/o Ward No. 4 Shanti Nagar, Rajnandgaon (CG) 2. / Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/22r OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. COURT OF JUDICATURB CHHATTISGARH: BILASPXJR Sia^le Bench: Hoa^ble Shri Satish K. A^nthotri, J. W. P. Ho. 4059 of 2005 Petitioner : of Chhattisgarh Vcrsus Respondents : Yashwaiit Kumar & aRofher ^.- Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate wifh Shii Maaish Agaiwal, Advocate for the. respondent No. 1. L^ (v- ORDEH (Passed on tliis 12th day ©fDecember, 2006) 1, According to the petitioner/State the respondent No.l was appoiated as Chowkidar 011 1.2.1992 in fhe Govenisiieut rest house, DongeTgaoii 011 daily w^es basis. There no post, even appoiiitnient of the petitioner. Accordingly, chowkidara are appoiiited ia fhe hoiise 011 daily basis. The services of the respondeut No.l was by oider dated 18.8, 1996. 2, a^rievecl a dispute raised by fhe respoiident No,l. The Labour Court passed fhe 011 15.3.2005 (Aiinexure P/l) in Case No. 3/I.D.Act/2002/Referen.ee, directing rehistateiiieiit ofthe respoiident No.l on the (x>st ofChowkMiar with 75% back wages. 3, Lpamed couiisel for tfae petitioiier/State does not press fhe of reMefof on tlie post of Chowkidar, as the No,l already beeii reinstated pursuaiit to the passed by fhe Labour Court. On tlie question of back Th&kur wages couiisel appeariiig for fhe petitioner subsoits tlie petitioner was adinittedly appoiiited 011 daily wages basis. Tlie petitioner no right to the post, as such the petltioner is iiot entitled for graiit of any back wages for the period lie remaiiied out of tlie job aiid did iiot work 011 dally as Cliowkidar. 4. The respoiideiit No. 1 has not macle out a case that he was uot employed elsewhere gainfully. There only pleadmg to fhat effect that he was not clomg aiiyfhmg. Even otherwise, fhe employee, eniployecl on daily wages basis is not entitled for back wages, as he had not worked 011 daily wages basis, This Court m tfae case of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samlti, Muageli Vs. Coiirt, Bitespiir & asaother { 2006 (1) CGLJ 483} held that MTfie daity wages employees are on tlw of ihe work perfonned on day to day basis. Tfiere is no cjuestion of jnaking any payinent of bcsck ivages. Tfw daily zucsges efnplojfees are recpAired to be engaged on the basis of of worfc and are paid tfw zuages on basis. "nzus, the iinfMgfwd award to tfw exteni ofgfnnt of is not in ?aw and the sa?ne desenfes to beseiaside^ 5. Accorduigly, this getitioii is partly aJlowed to the extent of graat of75% back wages, holcling that fhe respondent No, 1 employee is iiot eiititled to back wages. No osder as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge