ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. THE RESPONDENT IS A DAILY-WAGER. ON THE GRIEVANCE THAT HE HAD WORKED AS A DAILY-WAGER FOR MORE THAN 240 DAYS BETWEEN 1981 TO 1986 AND YET HIS SERVICES HAVE BEEN WRONGLY TERMINATED BY THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT APPROACHED THE LABOUR COURT. THE LABOUR COURT FOUND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6-N OF THE V.P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 HAD NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH, THEREFORE, THE RETRENCHMENT OF THE RESPONDENT WAS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. THE LABOUR COURT ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED REINSTATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT TOGETHER WITH 50 PER CENT BACK WAGES. COST OF RS 100 WAS ALSO ALLOWED. THIS DECISION OF THE LABOUR COURT WAS NOT CHALLENGED BY THE APPELLANT. THE RESPONDENT, HOWEVER, CHALLENGED THE AWARD OF THE LABOUR COURT ON THE GROUND THAT HE SHOULD HAVE, IN FACT, BEEN GRANTED FULL BACK WAGES. THE HIGH COURT ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION AND HELD THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO FULL BACK WAGES TOGETHER WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18 PER CENT PER ANNUM. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE HIGH COURT HAD ERRED IN LAW AND HAD WRONGLY PLACED THE BURDEN ON THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD BEEN EMPLOYED SOMEWHERE ELSE. THE DECISION IN CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS V. RAHMAT ULLAH1 HAS BEEN RELIED UPON IN THIS CONTEXT. 4. THE SECOND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS, IN ANY EVENT, A DAILY-WAGER AND HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BACK WAGES AS A MATTER OF COURSE ON REINSTATEMENT. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT THIS HAS BEEN SO HELD IN G.M., HARYANA ROADWAYS V. RUDHAN SINGH2. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE TERMINATION HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE ILLEGAL, FULL BACK WAGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED. IT IS URGED THUS THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSITION WAS WELL ESTABLISHED BY A SERIES OF DECISIONS OF THIS COURT. 6. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENT DEAL WITH PERMANENT EMPLOYEES WHOSE SERVICES HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY TERMINATED. IT IS URGED THUS THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSITION WAS WELL ESTABLISHED BY A SERIES OF DECISIONS OF THIS COURT. 6. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENT DEAL WITH PERMANENT EMPLOYEES WHOSE SERVICES HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY TERMINATED. AS FAR AS THE DAILY-WAGERS ARE CONCERNED, THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN EXTENSO IN RUDHAN SINGH CASE2 WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, WHEREIN THIS COURT HAS HELD: (SCC P. 596, PARA 8) THERE IS NO RULE OF THUMB THAT WHERE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL GIVES A FINDING THAT THE TERMINATION OF SERVICE WAS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 25-F OF THE ACT, SIMILAR TO SECTION 6-N OF THE V.P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, THAT THE ENTIRE BACK WAGES SHOULD BE AWARDED. THE NATURE OF APPOINTMENT, INCLUDING THE QUESTION WHETHER THE APPOINTMENT WAS AD HOC, SHORT TERM OR DAILY WAGE, ETC. HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. IN FACT, IN THAT CASE THE RESPONDENT WAS A DAILY-WAGER AND THIS COURT HAD DENIED ALL BACK WAGES. 7. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE COME SQUARELY WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF RUDHAN SINGH CASE2. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE DECISION OF THE LABOUR COURT AWARDING 50 PER CENT OF THE BACK WAGES. THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT IS NOT BASED ON ANY OTHER PRINCIPLE EXCEPT THE PRINCIPLE RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT IS SET ASIDE AND THE AWARD OF THE LABOUR COURT IS CONFIRMED. 8. THE AMOUNT AS DETERMINED BY THE LABOUR COURT SHOULD BE PAID TO THE RESPONDENT WITHIN FOUR WEEKS. IN DEFAULT, THE APPELLANT SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12 PER CENT PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF THE AWARD TILL THE DATE THE AMOUNT, IN FACT, IS PAID.