2004 INSC 0734
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                    Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C.

                                                      Vs.

                                                Kamal Kumar

                                   Review Petition No. 1886 of 2003

                                  (Mrs.Ruma Pal and Arun Kumar JJ.)

                                                 19.07.2004

                                                   ORDER

The Order of the Court is as follows

1. The petitioners have sought for review of an earlier order passed by this Court whereby
the special leave petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. The special leave petition
had been filed impugning an order of the High Court which had refused to interfere with the
Award of the Labour Court. The Labour Court's Award had been passed accepting the claim
of the respondent that his termination from service by the petitioner was illegal. The Labour
Court found, as a fact, that the respondent was employed as a daily wager for several years
by the petitioners. It also found that the petitioner had terminated the service of the
respondent and that the termination of service was illegal. It accordingly directed
reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service but since the respondent was a
daily wage employee, on the principle of 'no work no pay' no backwages were given from the
date of the termination of the respondent's services. It was, however, directed that the
respondent would be entitled for 'salary and all other benefits which he would have got while
remaining in continuous service."

2. The review petition was filed on the assumption that this Court had directed the petitioner
to absorb the respondent against a regular post. Therefore, in the review petition it has been
stated that it was not possible to comply with the directions because there were only 101
Class IV sanctioned posts and that there were already 161 employees working against the
sanctioned posts.

3. We make it clear that we had not directed the respondent to be regularised not to be
appointed against any substantive vacancy. The Labour Court Award which we affirmed
merely directed the status quo ante, as if the order of termination had not been passed.
Therefore, the respondent continues to remain a daily wager.

4. However, since the Labour Court had granted relief on the basis of the continuous service

1  SpotLaw
of the respondent we think it appropriate to recall our earlier order and to dispose of the
special leave petition by directing the petitioner;

        "(1) to reinstate the respondent as daily wager as directed by the Labour Court,

        (2) if there is any scheme for regularisation of daily wagers such as the respondent,
        the petitioners shall grant the respondent such relief taking into consideration his past
        service."

5. The Court has not directed any payment for the period subsequent to the Award of the
Labour Court in view of the assertion by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner that the provisions of Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have all
along been complied with.

6. The review petition is disposed of accordingly.

2  SpotLaw