( 1 ) PRESENT writ petition is directed against the order dated 11. 03. 2003 passed by the Prescribed authority by which the reference made by the Labour Court has been decided against the petitioner.

( 2 ) PETITIONER was admittedly engaged as daily wager by the respondents. It is claimed that the petitioner worked during the period 6. 8. 1986 to 26. 6. 1988 and thereafter no work has been taken from the petitioner. The petitioner filed writ petition No. 21679 of 1991 challenging the removal. This Court vide order dated 28. 11. 1995 has held as follows: since they are temporary daily wage employees so long as there is no regular posts available for the appointment the question of making pay on a per with the regular employees does not arise. But the appellant should necessarily and by implication, pay the minimum wages prescribed under the statute, if any or the prevailing wages as available in the locality. Now Mr. Tandon, submits that the petitioners should be allowed to continue or to give new assignment or a reengagement in case the respondents has undertaken any project. Be that as it may, in the fact and circumstances of the case this writ petition is disposed