st (^- HIGH GOURT OF CHHMTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (U No. 1718 of 2009 Petitioner Jeevan Prasad Roy, S/o Shri Ganesh Prasad Roy, aged about 23 years, R/o Quarter N0.19/6/A, Balco Nagar, Tahsil & District Korta(C-G). Versus Respondent Bharat Aluminum Company Limited (BAU30), through the Prasktent, Balco Nagar, Tahsil & DistrictKorba(Ce). (Writ Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. S.M.AIi, Ateocatefor the petitioner. ORALORDER (Paased on this 1st day ofApril, 2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugnect orderdated 20-2^009 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Industrial Court, Beneh at Bilaspur, in cMI appeal No.16/CGIR Act/A-ll/20)8 whereby the appeal ef the petitioner was dismissect. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to regularize hls senrice with all Uie consequential benefitB. 2. According to leamed counset appearing for the petKioner, the petitiener was working in the respondent Company for more than 240 days in a yesu' on the postof driver and was getting salary from ths resporKlent eompany. Even after completion of more than 4 years 6 months service, the servlce of the petitioner was not regularized. The peUtioner filedan application under Section 31 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Retations Act, 1960 (for short "Sie Act, 1960") before the Labour Court, Korba and prayed for grant of regularization and other conseqyential benefits. The LabourtSburt by orderdated 1-8-2008 (Annexure - P/3) rejected Vtte aiwlicafion of ttie petitioner holding thatthe appointment of the petattoner is unconsfituUonaf and not accordance wtth law. Being ^grieved, the petitioner preferred Aniit o civilappeal beforethe Industnal Court, which wasatso dismissed by order dated 20-2-20M (Annexure- P/1). Thus, thfe petition. 3. I have heard toarned counsel appearing for <he petffioner, perusedthe pleadingsand the documents appended thereto. The petiticmer has failed to establish the fact that on what b^ishe has enteied into •tesenrtce. It is the case of the petitioner that no appointment order was issued, however, the services of the petitioner wasengagedon dailywages basis. The petitioner has further failed to establish that the petitioner hss wortod fbr 240 days inthe preceding year before disengagemaitof his swvlces. tf the petitioner has failed to prove his case that he vras in cortfnuous service under prowsions of SecUon 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short the Act, 1947') the petttioneris not snUtled to anybeneflt under provisions ofSection 25-F ofthe Act, 1947. 4. Even othetwise, the petiUoner was n&t appointed tttrough open competitton, not In accordancewith tswandas a.ich, the appointraent was cfe hois the constitutional scheme of pubtic eroploymenl. It is well settled principle of law that an employment i.e. daily-wager, temporaiy, ad hoc etc.maclecfe/wrattieconsUtutionalschemecrfemploymentisillegal.null andvoid. Thus,the peUtioner has no rightto reinstatemant, conUnuation w regularizafion in service (See Secretary, State of Kamataka and ottwrs Vs. Umadevl (3) and others and Official Lfquidator Vs. Itoyanand and ottiers ). Thus, there is no illegality or iriTirmity in the orders passed by the Industrial Court as welt as Labour Court. 5. In viewof the foregoing, Ihe petltton (S.liable to be and is accordii^ly ^* dismlssed. -— —~~ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge l2006(4)SCCT 2 {(2008) IOSCC1)