^ ^N^ HIGHCQURT_OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR V/ritPetitionNo. 6520 of2005 & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Be that as it may, fhe order dated 28.05.1999 (Annexure P/4), passed by the Labour Court, has ah-eady been complied wifh and the petitioner was remstated on temporarily and seasonal basis. The petitioner fhereafter was again removed from service admittedly m October, 2002, which…
Judgment
(WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTtCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUnON OF DMDIA) fSB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Aenihotri, J.) Present : Shri Asholc Patil, Advocate fbr the petitioner. Shn M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Govf. Advocate for the State. Shri Pradeep Saxena, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ORALORDER (Passed OM 5 day of March, With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Truck Driver, purely on temporary and seasonal basis traiisportation of forest goodsw.e.f. 01.02.1985 (Amiexure P/2). Thereafter, according to petitioner, he continues in the same capacity. Witiiout producmg a copy ofremovalbrderfromfhe service as engagement of the petitioner was on temporary basis and seasonal, it appears that no order has been passsd, tlie petitioner approached fhe Labour Court. The Labour Court, by order dated 28.05.1999 (Aimexure P/4), holdmg that tfae punishment was excessive, directed r.einstatement oftfaepetitioner without back wages. The petitioner was thereafter reinstated pursuant to the order passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner avers in para 6.4 that the petitioner was agam removed from service unexpectedly in October, 2002, without affording an opportumty of hearing. Shri Bhatia, leamed counsel appearing for the State submits that the subsequent order of the Labour Court passed on 28.05.1999 (Annexure P/4), has been quashed by the Industrial Court by order dated 29.06.2005 (Annexure P/l).
Operative part
Be that as it may, fhe order dated 28.05.1999 (Annexure P/4), passed by the Labour Court, has ah-eady been complied wifh and the petitioner was remstated on temporarily and seasonal basis. The petitioner fhereafter was again removed from service admittedly m October, 2002, which is not under challenge in this petition. Thwe is no subsistence in this petition. Even otfaerwise, the daily wager who was appointed dehors the eonstitutional scheme of employmenf, is not entitled to reinstatement, continuation or regularization. The services of a daily wager can come to end at any day whenever his services are not required. If appointment itself is not accordance with constitutional scheme of employment, Ihe daily wager cannot make a grievance against his tennination. (See Secretary, State of Kamataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others, Indian Drugs & Phannaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Worfcmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and OfGcial Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others ). For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed; No order asto costs. Sattu
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.