JUDGMENT 1. :- By this Second Appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment of the Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur passed on 9.3.98 confirming the judgment dated 25.11.94 of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby suit of the appellant filed against order dated 7.1.87 of his termination from service of the respondent Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') was dismissed. 2. The facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant-instituted a suit seeking declaration that the order dated 7.1.87 terminating his service be declared null and void being illegal, on the ground that the termination is based on false remarks put on 2.1.87 and 4.1.87 whereas no inquiry has been conducted nor any opportunity of being heard has been afforded nor any pay in lieu of notice was given and the termination being punitive is against the service jurisprudence and violative of principles of natural justice as well as standing orders of the respondents Corporation. 3. Since no written statement was produced, so on 24.4.91, submission of i'ritten statement was closed. 4. The plaintiff appellant examined himself as PW1 and produced Exhibits 1 to 4 and during cross examination, the defendant Corporation produced Exhibit Al to A4 to controvert plaintiff's case. However, the defendant did not adduce any oral evidence. 5. The trial court declined to issue decree as sought for by the plaintiff and dismissed the suit, against which the plaintiff preferred first appeal which was also dismissed by the appellate court. Hence this Second Appeal is preferred against the concurrent findings of fact. 6. Shri A.K. Bhargava contended on behalf of the appellant that the findings of the courts blow holding first appointment with effect from 11.12.86 itself, not substantive, but purely on daily wages basis, is not sustainable being against the material based merely on wrong inference because according to Shri Bhargava first appointment was initially with effect from 11.12.86 but it related to undergo training, upon completion thereof, which continued upto 19.12.86, the appointment was not of daily wages employee, and therefore, termination of plaintiff's service without inquiry and following procedure of law was unjustified. 7. 7. Having perused the impugned judgments of courts below consisting of concurrent findings of fact as to the plaintiff being daily wages employee, and having heard learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant, prima facie, I am of the view that none of the contentions raised by Shri Bhargava involves any substantial questions of law much less questions of law or fact so as to warrant any interference in the concurrent findings of fact, which are based on relevant evidence on record and proper appreciation thereof. The trial court observed that the plaintiff has not pleaded either in plaint or his evidence as to from which date he has been holding post of Conductor as substantive whereas contrarily the defendant Corporation produced documentary evidence which established that he was not substantive Conductor but was Conductor on daily wage of Rs. 20/- upon having been re-employed on his application dated 19.12.86 (EX.A.3) by order dated 31.12.86 (Ex.A4) and he was removed from service only after seven days by impugned order dated 7.1.87 (Ex.3). In my considered view, the trial court as well as the appellate court rightly held the plaintiff as daily wages Conductor and not the substantive in the light of his application dated 19.12.86 (Ex.A3), orders dated 11.12.86 (Ex.A1), 20.11.86 (Ex.A2) and 31.12.86 (Ex.A4) and termination order dated 7.1.87 (Ex.3) which have been proved on record. Thus, once the employee plaintiff is held to have been holding no substantive post and holding post on daily wages basis, in my considered view, both the courts below have rightly held him not entitled to the benefit of principles of natural justice or an opportunity of being heard before his termination from service, because no such benefit can be extended to daily wages employee if terminated from service is without domestic inquiry of the allegation of misconduct. 8. Even otherwise also, findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal if erroneous whatsoever but only if based on irrelevant evidence or ignoring material or committing any error of law or jurisdiction. Since it is not the case of the plaintiff that findings of courts below are based on irrelevant evidence or ignoring material nor it is the case of error of law or jurisdiction, to admit this appeal, consequently this appeal is dismissed at admission stage.Appeal Dismissed. *******