IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that reinstatement with back wages is not automatic for daily-wage workers, and monetary compensation may be granted instead, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is filed under Article 226, 227, 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or writ of certioray or any other writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the award dated 29.12.2008 passed by the Labour Court at Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ) No.146 of 1992.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are as under;

2.1 The District Rural Development Agency at Jamnagar was assigned Central Government Scheme known as “National Rural Employment Scheme” and 100% grant was provided under the scheme by the Central Government in the ratio of 1:1. It is the case of the petitioner that the District Rural Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as "Agency") is meant for the implementation of Central Govt. and State Govt. schemes. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Agency has no source of income of its own and the schemes are being implemented on the basis of the grant released by the Central Government or State Government and the administrative expenses are borne out of the contingency fund. Govt. Moreover, the State Government has sanctioned posts qua various cadres for the smooth administration of the agency and Class I & II posts are filled up through deputation posted by the State Govt. while Class III & IV posts are filled up through employees posted by the District Panchayat on deputation. It is submitted that in case of necessity the petitioners used to employ daily wager on temporary and adhoc basis to meet with the demand of the situation.

2.2 It is pertinent to note that the respondent was appointed for a period commencing from 15.5.1992 to 31.05.1992 and was to work as daily wage Clerk. The petitioners most respectfully submit that the respondent herein was provided work on daily wage basis and was continued even thereafter in the said capacity in view of the requirement of the work and ultimately he was discontinued due to non availability of work with effect from 31.07.1993. As per the case of the petitioner the impugned action was in the interest of administration and public at large.

2.3 After more than 9 years the respondent herein approached the Labour Court by way of filing a reference [LCJ] No.146/02 praying for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages, to which details reply has been filed by the petitioner with all necessary documents. Before the Labour Court, a responsible officer of the petitioner was also examined. The Labour Court passed an award on 29.12.2008 ordering reinstatement with continuity but without back wages.

2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the same the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Labour Court has erred in not appreciating that the respondent was provided with the work purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis. It is also submitted that the respondent was a daily wage employee and was appointed without following any recruitment process.

3.1 It is further submitted that the respondent was appointed vide order dated 15.05.1992 and thereafter worked on same post, since the work was available under the National Rural Employment Scheme. It is also submitted that the respondent has not completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months as per the record. It is submitted that the respondent has worked for One year and three months purely on ad-hoc basis and there was no question of continuing the respondent who was employed without following due procedure of recruitment.

3.3 It is further submitted that respondent who has worked for only 15 month cannot be reinstated after a period of more than 16 years, as awarded by the Labour Court.

4. Per Contra, learned advocate for the respondent Mr. Tejas D. Shukla submitted that the respondent has worked from May 1992 till August 1993 i.e. around 15 months and due to non availability of work the respondent was terminated. It is submitted that the respondent is only receiving 17