Shiva Kirti Singh, J.@mdashIn this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 28th April, 1996 as contained in
Annexure-1 by which his service as daily wager has been terminated by the Executive Engineer of Bihar State Scheduled Caste Co-operative
Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation''). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as would appear
from the last two lines of the impugned order the service of the petitioner who was engaged on daily wages since 1.9.1987 has been terminated in
view of order no. 71 contained in memo no. 702 dated 11.4.1996 issued by the head office of the Corporation. Further submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid order no. 71 dated 11.4.1996 was challenged by a set of similarly situated daily wage employees of
the Corporation through a writ application bearing CWJC No. 9376 of 1996 (Nirmal Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors) which has
been allowed by judgment and order dated 16.2.2001 and as a result similarly situated persons have been ordered to be reinstated in the
employment of the Corporation on daily wages. On strength of aforesaid submission alone, according to learned counsel for the petitioner this writ
application deserves to be allowed because petitioner must be treated in similar fashion as required by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and its officials did not dispute the fact that CWJC No. 9376/1996 has been allowed by this
court on 16.2.2001 and as a consequence of order passed in that case, the petitioners therein have been reinstated by the Corporation. However,
he sought to point out certain distinctions between the case of this petitioner and the case of petitioners in CWJC No. 9376/1996 on the ground
that in that case the petitioners had challenged the validity of office order no. 71 dated 11.4.1996 whereas in the present case the challenge is to
actual order of termination pursuant to said order dated 11.4.1996. He further pointed out by referring to paragraph 12 of the judgment in CWJC
No. 9376 of 1996 that in that case the court rejected the submission on behalf of the Corporation that termination was being made on the ground
of financial crisis by observing that such a case was not pleaded. On the other hand, according to him, in the present case financial hardship is
mentioned in the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 itself. To verify the factual position this court had called for the records of CWJC No.
9376/1996 and Annexure-14 of that writ application contains an identical order of termination dated 22.4.1996 with regard to one of the
petitioners in that case, as has been issued against the petitioner of this case vide Annexure-1. Annexure-14 to that writ application contains
termination order in exactly identical terms and contains a passing reference to availability of fund as one of the reasons for termination. Same is the
situation in the present case. It further appears from the judgment in CWJC No. 9376/1996 that this court did not accept that termination had been
made on that ground i.e. on the ground of financial crisis prevailing in the corporation.
3. It is well settled in law that an employee engaged on daily wage has no right to continue in service if his services are not required by the
employer. However, retrenchment of daily wagers must be made in accordance with statutory provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act
such as section 25F and the equality clause as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In this case, it appears from the
impugned order, as was case of petitioners in CWJC No. 9376 of 1996, the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act had been
complied with before passing the termination order but from the materials on record and also from the fact that similarly situated employees have
been reinstated in service pursuant to judgment of this court in CWJC No. 9376 of 1996, it is clear that the respondent-Corporation is not paying
any heed to the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the matter of retrenchment of daily wage employees. Admittedly,
no appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed in CWJC No. 9376/1996 although the time for preferring LPA is 30 days
only.
4. In such circumstances, this court is left with no option but to quash the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 only on the ground that keeping
the petitioner under continued retrechment when other similarly situated have been reinstated in service as daily wagers would be violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above and the respondents are directed to
reinstate the petitioner in service as a daily wage employee within two weeks from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order.
Since the petitioner was employed on daily wage basis hence, he will not be entitled for any backwages. This was ordered in the other writ
application i.e. CWJC No. 9376/1996 on the basis of the principle ""no work no pay"". Before parting with this judgment this court would like to
clarify that in case the respondent-Corporation, after careful analysis of its job requirement for daily wagers and after examining its financial
position comes to a fresh decision that it is not possible or desirable to continue the daily wagers in service then it may resort to retrenchment in
accordance with law keeping in mind the well established principle of ''last come first go'' so that such retrenchment may not be in teeth of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.