f^ A F^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON No. 273 of2006 PETmONERS RESPONDENTS 1. State ofCUhaftisgarh. tla'oush Executive Eneineer. Department of Public Works, Durg Division, District Durg (C.G.) 2. The Sub Dh'isional Officer, Pataii Division, Public Works Departiaent, Patan, District Durg (C.G.) 3. Ths Sub Divisioiial OiScer, Bciiietara Divisioii* Public Works Depanment, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Dauwa son of Sliri Saniaru. 2. Shatmhaii son ofSiiri Kodu Rain. Ssenu, son ofSliri Bodhi. 4. Diiharan son of Siiri Chmta Ram. 5. Haidar son of Shri Hiadiya. 6. Baldau, son ofShri Shvaniratan. 7. MaiAaran son of Sliri Dahar. Ramprasad son ofShri Jatiram. 9. Rajkumar son of'Slm R-upau. 10. Rajendra Lal son ofShj'i HeeraiaS. Respondents No. 2 to 10 tlirough - Respondeiit No. 1 (i.e. Dauwa, son ofShri Samaru, residem. of viilage Pirda, Post Bhimohauri, P.s. and Tah. Beria, District Durg (C.G.) 11. The Presiding OfEcer, Labour Court, District Diirg (C.G.) WRlTPETmONUNDER^ARTICLES 226/227 OFJHE CONSTITUTION OF UA Presem: Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Paiiei Lawyer for flis State/petitioners. Shri N.K.Vvas, Advocate lorthe respondents 1 to 10. Passed on 19"' day of Febmar^..-, 2009) I.A. No. 3. This is an application for taking additionai documeiit on record. The application is ordsred as prayed for. The respondents were employed by the petitioners on daily wages basis onthe post ofLabour inthe year 1991. Tliey continued as Daily Wages Employees til! they were discontinued from services, in the yeai- 2000 by flie erstwhile State of Madhya Pi-adesh. The respondents, being aggrieved, raised a conciliation proceedings undei- tlie Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act, 1947'). The matter was referred 4. 7. to the Labour court, Dura under the provisions of sub section (1) of section 10 ofthe Act, 1947 and was registered as 17/2003/I.D.A./'Ref. Tne Labour Court, by its award dated 28.09.2005 (Annexure P/l) came to the conclusion that fhe action on tlie part of the petitioners iii retrenching the services oftlie respondents 1 to 10 is' bad in law, illegai and unjustified and directedfhe petitioners to reinstate the respondents 1 to 10 iinmediately and to pay 50% ofthe back-wages for the period tliey were out of employment. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this petftion 226/227 of the Constitiition of India, impugning the 28.09.2005 (Annexure P/l), passedbythe Labour Court, under Article award dated Leamed coiuisel appearing for fhe petitioners submits that tlie respondents, being the daily wages employses are even ofherwise not entitled to back-wages on the principle of 'no work, no pay'. Only the regular employees are entitled to consequential benefits including back wages, in case the tennination order is set aside or is declared as invalid by the Court. This was not the case ofthe respondeiits 1 to 10, that they were working on regular basis against any vacaiit post. fliri N.K.Vyas, leamed counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 10 submits that the respondents 1 to 10 have proved their case upto the exteat that they have worked for more than 240 days in tlie preceding vear and earlier also. It is farther subniitted that the services of the respondents 1 to 10 have been regularised by fhe petitioners, which is evident from perusal ofArmexure R/7. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the t pleadings and documents appended thereto. i, pemseci tiit The identica! issue asto whether the Daily Wages Employee is entitled to back-wases or not came up for consideration before tliis Court in the matter of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mimgeli v. Presidmg Officer, Laboiir Court, Bilaspur &another (W.P. No. 1247of 1996). This Court, vide its order dated 1 March-, 2006, observ'ed as under: "7.......Tlie daily wages employees are paid wases on the basis of the work perfomied on day to day basis. ^-•"...=, /y /'.{'•l^ <A ?• •?'^ ^3^"'J There is no question of making any payment of back wages. Tlie daily wages employees are required to be engaged on the basis of availability of work and are paid the wages on that basis. Tlius, the inipugiied award to the extent of grant of back wages is not sustainable m law and the same desei'ves to be sst aside. I have not found any perversity or illegality in the impugned award as the impugned award was passed on tlie basis ofthe proper evidence and after applying the proper law to the case. So fai- as the question ofback- wages is concemed, admittedly, fhe respondents 1 to 10 were employed on daily wages and they continued to work on tlie post of Labour. Tlie daily wages employees are paid wages on the basis of tlie work performed on day to day basis. There is no question of making aiiy pa^'nient of back wages. The daily wages employees are required to be engaged oa the basis of availability of work and are paid the wages oa that basis. Thus, the impugned award to the extent of grant of back wages is not sustainable in Iwv and the same desen'es to be set aside. The petition is accordingly, pailly aliowed to the above extent. The order of the Labour Court is mamtained so far as reiastatemeiit is concemed. However, the order of payment of back wages and conssqueatial benefits is set aside and quashed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ajmfc