JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 16.7.1999 and 25,8.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (IV) U.P. Kanpur in Misc case No. 27 of 1999.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Presiding officer Labour Court (I) Kanpur passed an award in Adjudication case No. 218 of 1997 directing the employers to pay entire arrear of salary to Sri Rais Khan and shall also maintain his service from 16.2.1988 but back wages shall not be paid to him. This award is subject matter of Writ Petition No. 8207 of 1999. The respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 before the Labour Court for payment of Rs. 44,394/- and the Labour Court issued notice to the petitioner in Misc. case No. 27 of 1999. Against the aforesaid award petitioner filed writ petition No. 8207 of 1998 in which this Court on 26.3.1999 passed interim orders.
4. It is alleged that the petitioner filed its reply to the aforesaid notice informing the Labour Court that unless writ petition No. 8207 of 1998 is disposed of the Labour Court may not take any decision. The Respondent No. 2 filed an application before the Labour Court by which he tried to modify the Chart of his salary already submitted by him. The Labour Court passed an order for payment of Rs. 5292/- to the opposite party No. 2. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the Labour Court for quashing the order dated 16.7.1999.
5. The Labour Court by the impugned order-dated 16.7.1999 held that by award in adjudication case No. 218 of 1997 the workman was directed to be reinstated on same status on which he was working on before his termination. Sri Rais Ahemad was working as apprentice daily wage @ of 25 per day before his termination. In the award in adjudication case No. 218 of 1997 there is no direction that the workmen was to be paid in regular pay scale. In spite of noting this fact, the Labour court by the impugned order held that payment to the workman be made at par with a permanent employee. It is illegal and he was not entitled to pay scale of a regular employee. No reason has been given by the Labour Court why the workman is entitled to pay scale of regular employee. A daily wager has no existing right and is not entitled for wages of regular worker. The relevant extract of the award is as under:-
^^mijksDr leLr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gwa fd lsok;kstdksa }kjk Jfed jbZl [kka iqq= Lo- uUgsa [kkW dqyh dks fnukad 16-2-88 ls dk;Z ls i`Fkd @ oafpr fd;k tkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/kkfud gSA eSa vkns'k nsrk gwa fd lsook;kstd fookfnr Jfed dks rRdky mldh lsokvksa dh rkjrH;rk ds lkFk iwoZ lsok 'krksZa ij dk;Z ij okli ys rFkk cSBdh dh vof/k dk dksbZ osru Jfed dks ns; u gksxkA eSa ;g Hkh vkns'k nsrk gwa fd lsok;kstd i{k Jfed i{k dks [email protected]& #i;s ¼,d lkS dsoy½ okn O;; ds :i esa vnk djsaxsA fnukad% 26-5-68 [email protected]&& ¼vkj-Mh-ikBd½ ihBklhu vf/kdkjhA**
6. Even the workman had not been awarded regular pay scale of permanent employee. The Labour Court acted illegally in granting salary of the regular employees. The Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent No. 2 has himself admitted in his statement that he was paid Rs. 25/- per day.
7. The application under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 was not maintainable as in the instant case, stay order was already operative. The Labour Court has no power to pass an order implementing the award which was kept in abeyance by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8207 of 1999.
8. The connected writ petition No. 8207 of 1999 has been allowed by this Court vide judgment-dated 9.1.2004. As a consequent thereof the order passed by the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) consequent to the award cannot be sustained. Even otherwise also the Labour Court has acted as material irregularity in not recalling its impugned order passed ex-parte. The writ petition is also allowed and impugned order given by the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) is quashed. No order as to costs.