JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 16.3.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Allahabad whereby the claim of the petitioners has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of this case are that in January 1989 the petitioners were engaged by the respondent-Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, Allahabad to work as gardener/attendant, on daily wage basis. According to the petitioners, they continued to work as such till December 1994. Thereafter in January 1995 a Project was sponsored by SIDBI for some work to be conducted by the respondent-Hospital in the rural areas. The petitioners were engaged to work in the project on fixed emoluments from 1st January 1995 till 7.7.1996 i.e. the date till the project remained in operation. On such Project having been wound up, the services of the petitioners were dispensed with. They thus raised an industrial dispute and a question was referred to the Labour Court as to whether their termination with effect from 8.7.1996 was proper and legal and if not, to what relief would they be entitled to. The Labour Court, after discussing the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief claimed by them.
3. I have heard Sri Shitla Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and assisted by Sri Piyush Bhargava. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that since the witness of the respondent-Hospital had herself admitted that prior to being taken in service of the project, the petitioners were working with the respondent-Hospital since January 1989, thus the petitioners ought to have been treated as sent on deputation from the hospital to the project; and on completion of such project they ought to have been reverted back in service of the hospital. It has been contended that other employees of the hospital who had been sent on deputation for the project had been taken back in service of the hospital.
5. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be untenable as he is not able to establish that the petitioners were ever in regular service of the respondent-hospital. Admittedly they were only working with the hospital on daily wage basis for a period of six years prior to January 1995. The engagement on daily wage basis is not appointment on a post according to the Rules. Thus the petitioners cannot be treated in service of the respondent-hospital. It is true that other employees of the respondent-hospital, who had been sent on deputation, had been reverted back in sendee after completion of the project. The case of the petitioners would not fall in the same category as they were earlier working with the respondent-hospital only on daily wage basis. What is to be considered in this case is the right of the petitioners as on 31.12.2004 when they claim to have been last working with the respondent-hospital, after which they worked in the project. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to place any rules or scheme of the respondent-society to show that if they have worked for a particular period of time, the petitioners had acquired a right to be absorbed in the service of the hospital. In the absence of the same, after the project sponsored by the SIDBI had been completed, the petitioners cannot claim to have any better right than that which they had on the date they were last working in the hospital, which was only of a daily wager, who cannot be considered at par with a regular employee. It is only a regular employee who can be sent on deputation and not a daily wager. Hence the contention that they had been sent by the hospital to work in the project on deputation is not acceptable and consequently they have no right to be reverted back in service of the respondent hospital. As such, in my view, the award of the Labour Court, rejecting the claim of the petitioners, does no! suffer from any illegality. However1, with the consent of Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the contesting respondents, it is provided that in case if the respondent-hospital makes any fresh engagement on daily wage basis as gardener/attendant, the petitioners shall be given preference for such engagement.
6. Subject to the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.