- (1.) LEAVE granted. The respondent was appointed as a daily wager with the appellant in 1982. According to the appellant, his appointment was in respect of a particular project, namely, Sabarmati Colony Project. After that project came to an end, the respondent was given employment as a daily wager in the Sabarmati Reservoir Project. It is the appellant's further case that in November, 1986 an incident took place as a consequence of which, the appellant filed criminal proceedings against the respondent. Since the date of that incident, the respondent had not attended his work.
(2.) ACCORDING to the respondent, his services were, in fact, terminated in 1986 by the appellant and a false criminal case had been initiated against him. The criminal case ended in acquittal of the respondent. In 1989, the respondent raised an industrial dispute challenging the termination of his services. While the industrial dispute was pending, from time to time, the respondent has been employed by the appellant. The award of the Labour Court was passed on May 3, 1999, directing reinstatement of the respondent together with continuity of service and back wages from September 23, 1998. The writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the award, was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the appellant to the Division Bench of the High Court met with the same fate. It is not possible for us to reopen the issue as to whether there was an abandonment of the work by the respondent or a termination of the respondent's services. The Labour Court has found that there was a termination and that finding, cannot be said to be perverse. We may clarify that when a daily wager is reinstated, he/she is re-employed as a daily wager. The award cannot, by directing reinstatement, tantamount to regularisation of the workman's services. Continuity of service in the context of a daily wager, means the maintenance of the seniority of the workman amongst other daily wagers. As far as back wages are concerned, neither the Division Bench, nor the learned single Judge has considered this aspect of the matter at all. We, therefore, modify the orders under appeal by upholding the reinstatement of the respondent as a daily wager for continuity of service in the sense defined by us. As far as the back wages are concerned, the matter is remanded back to the learned single Judge for the purpose of determination of the issue. In the light of the decision of this Court in General Manager. Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh 2005-III-LLJ-4 (SC). The appeals are accordingly, partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.;