R.P. Dholaria, J.

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 13.4.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No. 253 of 1994 whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman in service with 50% back wages. The facts of the present petition are that the respondent workman was working as Rojamdar and he was paid wage of Rs. 32.20 paise per day. He was given appointment for 29 days. After completion of 29 days, the petitioner Nagar Palika used to extend the appointment order for further period of 29 days after passing appropriate resolutions. On 9.1.1993 the services of the workman came to be terminated. The respondent workman raised industrial dispute in the year 1994 by filing statement of claim before the Labour Court, Bhavnagar. He claimed reinstatement with full back wages. The petitioner denied the claim of the workman by filing written statement. It is stated in the written statement that the workman was appointed on ad hoc basis for 29 days and if work was available, the said period was extended from time to time. Therefore, there was no question of issuing notice pay before retrenchment of the workman. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence available on record, passed the award as aforesaid which is under challenge in this petition.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. D.M. Thakkar for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. T.R. Mishra for the respondent workman. Learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently contended that on the basis of the evidence produced by the petitioner, the Labour Court failed to consider that the workman was a daily rated employee appointed for a fix period of 29 days and his service came to an end on the expiry of the said period of employment. Therefore, in the present case, when the services of the workman came to an end by virtue of contract, provision of Section 25F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act shall not be attracted to the facts of the present case. In support of this contention, he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma AIR 2006 SC 2614 : (2006) 6 SCC 221 : LNIND 2006 SC 516 : 2006-III-LLJ-492, more particularly, paragraph Nos. 17, 22 and 27 which are reproduced hereinafter:

"17. In our opinion, the High Court has committed a patent error in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein who is a daily wage worker when it was not established that he was working on regular basis. The High Court, in our opinion, is not justified in directing that respondent No. 1 must be reinstated and appointed to similar post. The High Court has also clearly erred in examining the legality of the policy and giving relief solely on the ground that it found the policy and actions of the appellant contrary to Arts. 14 and 16 of the constitution. It is pertinent to notice that the High court has taken into consideration an entirely new aspect which was neither pleaded by the petitioner in the writ petition before the High Court nor was claimed in the claim statement filed before the Tribunal without giving an opportunity to the parties to effectively reply to the same. Likewise, the High Court also failed to consider that the system of engagement of 'Ticca Mazdoors' has since been abolished in November, 1993, while this fact was brought on record of High Court in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank.

22. In our view, respondent No. 1 was not appointed to any regular post but was only engaged on the basis of the need of the work on day to-day basis and he has no right to the post and that his dis-engagement cannot be treated as arbitrary. The High Court, in our view, has totally misdirected itself in holding that non-consideration of the name of respondent No. 1 on acquiring higher qualification is not misconduct, hence, dismissal of the workman on this ground is wrongful within the meaning of Item 3, Schedule