v ^ HSGH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 31 of 2005 PETITiONERS : 1. State of jlVI.P. (now State of Chhattls^rh) Through Goliector, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The S.D.O. IVSahanadi Reservoir P.iVI.L Sub Division Rudri Post Rudrl, Dhamtarl District Dhamtari(CG) 3. ExecutweiEngineer,Pairi Hi^i Dam DMslon, Rudri, Post Rudri District: Dhamt8ri(CG) VERSUS : I RESPONDENTS : 1. Jagdeo Ram Sen s/o Manbodh, aged about 43 years, R/o GangreS, Tahsil, Dhamtari Dlstrict Dhamtarl, Dastriet Dhamteri (CG) 2. Presiding Ofi'scer, Labour Court, Raipur (GG) 3. State SndustriaS Court, Bpnch Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTSCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1NDIA SB: Hon'bte Shrt SatSsh K.Agnlhotrl. J. j ' '- Present; Shri M.P.S.Bhatla, Deputy Government Advocate for the petitionerVStst®. 1 Shri P.S.Koshy,Advocate for the resporident No.i. GRAl.ORDER | (Passed on 04th ciay of March, 2009) WIth the consent of the partj^s, the matter E& taken up for heartng finaily. i. Learned counsel appearing Tor the petiSaoners submits that the Impugned ortier dated 07.07.200i (Annexure P/i), passed by the Labour Court, Ralpur, In case No. 14/IVSPiR/97, and the proceeding order dated 24.09.200t passed In Civli Appeal No. 204/IVIPSR Aet/A- 11/01, (Annexure P/2) are perverse and bad in !aw. 2. Admlttediy, the respondents No. 1 (appjicant thereln) was a dally wager. HIs appolntment was not In accordance wlth constltutlonal scheme csf empioyment. The respondent No. t was en^ged from 01.01.199i to 31.12.1995 as ChowWdar by th®S.D.O, Water Management, Sub Divlsion No. 9, Gangrel and from 01.0i.i996, he posted In the office of the petitloner No. 2,;purely!on temporary The respondent No. 1 was removed from service with effect from 20.08.i996. C-- 3. The iearned Judge, without recording findings, asto whether the respondent No.i has worked for240 days in a year, particularly precedlng year, directed to grant 50% backwages and reinstate him wlthtn a period of one, month vide its order datsd 07.07.2001 (Annexure P/i). Against the said order, the petitlonem preferred an appeal which was aiso vlde order dated 24.09.200i (Annexur®P/2). 4. 3 have heard Searned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It appears that, the learned Labour Court has not examined the well-settled princjpies of law. Firstly, the daify wager who has been appointed dehors the constltutjonai scheme of employment, Is not entltSed to back-wages, reinstetement, continuatlon or re^ilarization. The services of the daify wager can come to end at any day whenever his services are not required. if appointment Itself Is not in accordance with constitutional scheme of employment, the dai3y wager cannot make a grievance against his termination. Secondiy, even if, Section 25 F of the Sndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act, 1947') is invoked, the petitloner may be entitled to get retrenchment compensatlon if the petltloner has proveci to have worked for more than 240 days or more In one year, but no findings has been recorded bythe courts beiow. 5. The Supreme Court, In the matter of Secrefsry, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umsdew(3) and others1 observed In para 47 as under: "47. When a person enters a temporaiy empSoyment or gets engagement as a contractual or casuai worker and the engagement Is not based on a proper se!ection as recognized by the reievant rutes or procedure, he Is aware of the consequences of the appointment being tempora?y, casuai or contracfeuai In nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of iegjtimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when anappolntment tothe post could be madeoniy by foilowjng a proper procedure for selection and jn cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service CommissSon. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be sucGessfuiiy i 2006 (4) SCC 1 -"--f advanced by temporary, contractuai or casual empioyees. Itcannot also be hekl that the State has held out any promise while engaglng these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionaiiy make such a promise.ilt jsalso obvic»usthatthe theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post." 6. In the matter of fndian Drugs & PfiarmaceutScaSs Ltd. Vs.WoriQnen, indlan Drugs & Pharmaceytteate Ltd.2, the Supreme Court observed as under: "34.Thus, 'rt is well settled that there| is no ri^it vested in any daily-v^ger to seek regularization. Regularizatlon can onty be done m accordance with the rules and not dehors the mies......" 35. In Surinder Singh Jamwal (Dr.) v. State af J&K it was held that ad hoc appolntment does not give any right for reguiarlzation as regularizatjon is govemed by the statutory rutes." 7. The observations made hereinabove in cases (Supra), with approva!, ths Supreme Court in the matter of omcfe/ llqylctetor Vs. Dayanand and ofters3 has further expiained about the rights of the daity wagers and regulanzation. Para 70 reads as under: "70. The Shift in the Court's approach became more prominent in A. Umarani v. Coop. Socjeties, decided by a three-Judge Bench, wherein it was held that the State cannot invoke Articie 162 of the Constitution for reguSarization of the appointments made in vioiation of the mandatory statutoiy provisions." 8. For the reasons mentioned herelnabove, this petitlon is aISowed. The Impugned order dated 24.03.2004 (Annexure P/i), passed by the Labour Court, Raipur, in case No. B/04/I.D.Act/Ref./liV 2002 and order dated 24.09.200i (Annexure P/2), passed in Ch/il Appeal No. 204/IV3PSR Act/A-ii/01, are hereby quashed. No order asto costs. 9. Consequentiy, !VI(W)P No. 33/2005, stands disposed of. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge 22007(i)SCC408 3(2003)10SCGi