JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. No one has appeared for respondents inspite of service. 2. The respondent-workman was appointed as daily rated chowkidar in the petitioner's establishment on 1.6.85 and his services were terminated on 23.9.88. The said termination was alleged to be by way of retrenchment, an Industrial dispute was raised about the validity of said retrenchment amongst other grounds, the retrenchment was challenged on the basis that full salary in lieu of one month's notice as required under section 25F(a) was not paid to the workman at the time of retrenchment, but lesser amount was offered. The fact that the workman was a daily rated workman was not in dispute. IL" is also not in dispute that out of total amount offered to the workman 26 days wages as per daily rate of wage payable to workman only was paid as one month's remuneration in lieu of one month's notice. At the relevant time the daily wages for daily rated worker was Rs. 14 per day, accordingly Rs. 364 for 26 days were paid to the workman as per the present appellant. The Labour Court has found that requirement of law is one month's notice or wages for one month in lieu of a notice as a condition precedent of valid retrenchment under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. According to Labour Court one month means 30 days and if a workman is employed with reference to daily period and if he is not given one month's notice before retrenchment, for the purpose of computing the wages in lieu of one month's notice the period of one month has to be taken to be 30 days for a daily rated workman and not 26 days only. 4. For coming to this conclusion, the learned Judge, Labour Court relied on a decision of this Court in Devendra Salolia v. State of Raj., 1990(1) RLR 734 , wherein in learned Single Judge of this Court has taken the view that payment of 26 days for daily wages in lieu of one month's salary for effecting the valid retrenchment is not compliance of Section 25F He must be paid 30 days wages to satisfy the requisite of a valid retrenchment. 5. Aggrieved with the award, the present appellant preferred the writ petition before this Court. 5. Aggrieved with the award, the present appellant preferred the writ petition before this Court. It appears that at the time of hearing it was contended before the learned Single Judge that the respondent-workman was on monthly wages and not on daily wages and therefore, the amount paid to the workman which was minimum wages fixed for one month, satisfied the requirement of Section 25F to the extent it requires payment of one month's salary in lieu of the one month's notice. There being no foundation in the pleading that the workman was a monthly rated employee, this plea was not allowed to be raised. Otherwise no error was found in the award and the petition was dismissed in limine. 6. Aggrieved with the judgment of learned Single Judge, this special appeal has been preferred. 7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant by drawing attention to Annexure-4 by which minimum wages have been fixed for period specified therein w e.f. 17th February, 1987 that the minimum wages per month were fixed i.e. Rs. 364 and Rs. 14 were fixed as minimum wages per day. On this premise, it was contended that Rs. 14 per day minimum wages were fixed by dividing the monthly wages with divided 26, therefore, a daily wage earner, who was paid paid minimum wages Rs. 14 per day his monthly wages ought to be construed as Rs. 364 per month on the basis of said notification. 8. It may be noticed that duty for fixing the minimum wages by the appropriate govt. arises under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which is also a labour welfare legislation. Under sub-section (3) of Section 3 the minimum rate of wages may be fixed by any one or more of the following wages-periods, namely: by the hour, by the day, by the month or by such other large wage-period as may be prescribed. Apparently, prescribing the minimum wage for a particular wage period cannot be considered to be yardstick for the purpose of determining monthly emoluments for the purpose in the context of another statutes, if minimum wage is fixed by the hour or by the day. Apparently, prescribing the minimum wage for a particular wage period cannot be considered to be yardstick for the purpose of determining monthly emoluments for the purpose in the context of another statutes, if minimum wage is fixed by the hour or by the day. If it is fixed per day for every day the work is discharged, minimum wage for each day's work has to be paid at the end of the day the workman has actually worked and if it is fixed by the month, the minimum wage for per month has to be paid irrespective of number of days working days in a month. The notification Ex. 4 has been issued for entirely different purpose for working out the rate of minimum wage for each wage period and this cannot be taken to be the basis for considering what is emolument payable for the month to a daily rated workman for the purposes of other enactment which has to be construed in the context in which provision in such other enactment has been made. 9. That is view, which has been expressed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Devendra Salolia's case (supra) and we are in full agreement with the view expressed therein. 10. In view thereof, we do not find any error in the award passed by the Labour Court and therefore, no interference is called for. 11. On that ground learned counsel for the appellant has also urged as noticed by us above as has been urged before the learned Single that the workman was paid monthly wages of Rs. 364 per month. The contention, in our opinion, is not founded on facts and is contrary to pleadings of the parties. 12. The workman has alleged in his claim filed before the Labour Court that he was employed as a daily rated workman on 1.6.85 and this fact has not been denied. In these circumstances, it is now not open for the petitioner to raise a new plea of fact and to urge that the workman was in fact on monthly employment and not on daily employment. 13. We further find that workman's services were terminated in 1988 and reference was made in 1990 and award has been made in 1992, the Labour Court has allowed back wages at the rate of 75% about which no interference is called for. 14. 13. We further find that workman's services were terminated in 1988 and reference was made in 1990 and award has been made in 1992, the Labour Court has allowed back wages at the rate of 75% about which no interference is called for. 14. However, the respondent-workman has not chosen to appear before this Court inspite of service nor any application has come up before this Court, even after the order of reinstatement has been stayed a/s. 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act by alleging that the workman is not gainfully employed. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the workman may be allowed future wage only with effect from the date he joins duty. 15. We deem it proper to direct, while dismissing the writ petition, that is case the workman only appears before the appellant for joining services, he may be allowed back wages until the date of award, but wages with effect from the date of award until the date of joining may be subject to his satisfying employer that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the period the matter has pended here. In case the dispute is not resolved, the question may be decided by making an appropriate application before the Labour Court under section 33C(2) for quantifying the amount payable under the award as an ancillary issue arising from the award for its implementation. 16. As a result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 17. Interim order is vacated.Appeal Dismissed - Award Modified. *******