A daily wager does not have a legal right to claim regularization and must prove continuous work for 240 days in a calendar year. Temporary employees cannot claim to be made permanent on the expiry of their term of appointment, and engagement on daily wages or casual basis comes to an end when discontinued. Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination apply in employment.

( 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 of directing that the respondents to re-engage the petitioner in case any new project is undertaken by the respondent at any place whatsoever on the basis of priority of claim in the light of the observation made in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority (Supra ).

( 3 ) IT appears that the petitioner has been further engaged as Chaukidar during the penod 23. 6. 1996 to 11. 8. 1996 on daily wage basis. Thereafter, the petitioner has not been engaged in the service. The petitioner moved an application to the Labour Officer and on the basis of the application, reference was made to the Prescribed Authority, Labour Court, Gorakhpur, which has been decided by the impugned order. It has been held by the impugned order that the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit.

( 4 ) HEARD Sri B. Ram, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days from 6. 8. 1986 to 26. 6. 1988 in a year and again worked from 23. 6. 1996 to 11. 8. 1996. He further submitted that by the order dated 28. 11. 1995, this Court has directed the respondents to re-engage the petitioner in case any new project is undertaken by the respondent at any place whatsoever on the basis of priority of the claim, Thus, though, he has been engaged in the work during the period 23. 6. 1996 to 11. 08. 1996, but the respondent has not provided any service to the petitioner, subsequently though, various projects are going on Learned Standing submitted that the petitioner was engaged as daily wager and his service started in the morning and ended at the end of the day and the petitioner has no right to claim the regularization and insist for providing the service.

( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, 1 do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner was engaged as daily wager and was entrusted to work as chaukidar. The work of the daily wager starts in the morning and ends at the end of the day. The daily wager has no right to claim his engagement.

( 8 ) IN the case of M. P. Housing Board and Anr. v. Manoj Shrivastava reported in 101 (2006 )CLT580 (SC ), JT2006 (3 )SC 73 , (2006 )II LLJ119 SC , 2006 (2 )SCALE572 , (2006 )2 SCC702 , 2006 (2 )SLJ464 (SC ), the Apex Court held as follows: a daily wager does not hold a post unless he is appointed in terms of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. He does not derive any legal right in relation thereto. The effect of such an appointment recently came up for consideration in State of U. P. v. Neeraj Awasthi" wherein this Court clearly held that such appointments are illegal and void. It was further held: (S