JUDGMENT : K.A. Puj, J. The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing and setting aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara on 17.02.2009 in Reference (I.T) No.192/1998, whereby the learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara has partly allowed the said reference and the petitioner was directed to pay the minimum grade along with dearness allowance to the workmen with effect from 1st January, 2008. The Tribunal, however, not granted the increments and other monetory benefits. It was also made clear that if the wages are increased considering the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, the workmen would be entitled to get such increased wages. After filing of the petition, the petitioner has moved draft amendment which was granted on 25.11.2009 and as per the draft amendment, the petitioners have also challenged the impugned award along with its modification made by the Tribunal, while passing further award in Review Application (I.T) No.3/2009 on 12th August, 2009. This Court has issued notice for final disposal on 04.12.2009, despite service of notice nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent and hence Rule was issued on 18.01.2010. Till this date, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. While issuing the Rule, the Court has made a specific observation in its order that in case, no one represents the respondent, then the Court would be passing order appropriately either by allowing the petition and/or staying the award entirely. 2. In the above background of the matter, this petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the employees were working as casual employees under the Executive Engineer, Devadia Colony Division, Narmada Project (Rehabilitation) on daily wages and were engaged in providing basic facilities like drinking water, electricity, hand-pump repairing etc. There are seven employees, out of whom, two are working as electric wiremen, two as pump operators, one as plumber and rest are watchmen. On 20.04.1998 the daily wagers made a representation to the petitioner authority to regularise them and give benefits equivalent to regular employees. The demands made in representation by the respondents were unreasonable and hence the demands were not accepted by the petitioner authorities. On 20.04.1998 the daily wagers made a representation to the petitioner authority to regularise them and give benefits equivalent to regular employees. The demands made in representation by the respondents were unreasonable and hence the demands were not accepted by the petitioner authorities. The respondent, therefore, approached Labour Commissioner regarding daily wagers' demands and since no appropriate out-come has come, the Labour Commissioner referred to the same to Industrial Tribunal on 27.07.1998. 4. The respondent union in its statement of claim, submitted that the employees had worked for 240 days and hence they deserve all the benefits given to other regular employees which include equal wages, uniform, wage appreciation and all other benefits as recommended by the pay commission. The petitioners have filed their written statement on 11.07.2002, wherein it was clearly explained that all the employees are appointed as casual employees and hence they do not deserve the benefits which were demanded by them. The contentions raised and submissions made on behalf of the petitioners were not accepted by the Industrial Tribunal and passed impugned award. 5. After passing of the award, two other workmen claimed similar benefits, whose names were reflected in the award. The application filed by other two workmen for considering their case as part of the award, was allowed by Industrial Tribunal. In view of this development, the petitioners sought amendment in the main petition and submitted that a Review Application No. 3/2009 was filed for the consideration of other two daily wagers who claimed to be similarly placed as other daily wagers who were already referred to in the award dated 17.02.2009. The said application was allowed by the Industrial Tribunal on 12.08.2009 by way of supplementary award and directed to treat the said supplementary award as a part of the original award and the same benefits were directed to be extended to these two daily wagers. In view of this development the petitioners have also sought an amendment in their prayer clause, praying for quashing and setting aside the award dated 17.02.2009 as modified by award dated 12.08.2009. 6. Mr. Asim Pandya, learned advocate appearing for H.L. Patel Advocates for the petitioners submitted that all the employees were employed in rehabilitation site for providing the basic requirements like drinking water, electricity and light, repairs of hand-pump and other miscellaneous work. 6. Mr. Asim Pandya, learned advocate appearing for H.L. Patel Advocates for the petitioners submitted that all the employees were employed in rehabilitation site for providing the basic requirements like drinking water, electricity and light, repairs of hand-pump and other miscellaneous work. For these works, they were given daily wages and were casual employees, the payments for the same are provided in accordance with the work done and the details of the said expenses are provided in the budget of that particular time. While considering the resolution dated 17.10.1988, it was a clear mandate not to make any new recruitment of daily wagers and thus it was very carefully maintained and followed. He has further submitted that none of the employees had completed 240 days of work in a particular year. All these employees were not temporary employees and their services were required for supply of water and electric repair work. The daily wagers who are casual employees and whose services are not required on a regular basis should not be granted any relief with reference to minimum wages. Neither are they recruited as regular employees nor are they doing any such job. No benefits of permanent employees can be given to them. He has further submitted that these employees are only called when their need arises and are paid wages in accordance with the requirement. All these employees are for special project and such employees might not necessarily be required once the project is completed. He has, therefore, submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court deserve to be quashed and set aside, in so far as it relates to the direction to the petitioners to regularise these workmen and to pay them the minimum grade. 7. In support of his submissions, Mr. Pandya relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi & Others, 2006 (3) LLN 78 (SC), wherein it is held that: "Unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the Court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because, an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which is described as 'litigious employment', he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The Courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates." 8. Considering the facts of the present case and the above judgment of the Apex Court, Mr. The Courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates." 8. Considering the facts of the present case and the above judgment of the Apex Court, Mr. Pandya has strongly urged that the directions issued by the Industrial Tribunal to grant the minimum grade to the employees in question are absolutely illegal, unwarranted and contrary to the settled principles of law. He has, therefore, submitted that these directions issued by the Labour Court deserve to be quashed and set aside. He has, however, submitted that the petitioners have no objection to pay the minimum wage to the workmen for the period during which they have worked. 9. Despite service of notice nobody appears on behalf of the respondent and hence the Court had no occasion to consider the submissions of the respondent. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and having gone through the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the Court is of the view that the directions issued by the Industrial Tribunal to pay the minimum grade to the petitioners with effect from 01.01.2008, deserve to the quashed and set aside as the said directions are contrary to the decision of the Apex Court. There is no dispute about the fact that all the employees are casual employees and they were working on daily wages. There is also no dispute about the fact that none of these employees are on the regular muster role. Their appointments are not made after following proper procedure. As such, they have not rendered continuance services. As and when there is work, their services are availed of and the payments were made to them. By raising the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, what they have sought was the regularisation of their services and they have demanded that they should be placed in the minimum grade of pay. Prevailing minimum grade of pay can be paid to the regular employees. The daily wagers or casual workmen cannot demand such minimum grade of pay. By raising the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, what they have sought was the regularisation of their services and they have demanded that they should be placed in the minimum grade of pay. Prevailing minimum grade of pay can be paid to the regular employees. The daily wagers or casual workmen cannot demand such minimum grade of pay. The learned Presiding Officer has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi & Others (supra), however, he failed to correctly appreciate the ratio laid down by the Apex Court. As a matter of fact, after laying down the law, the Apex Court, clarified that those decisions which run contrary to the principles settled in this decision, or in which directions running contrary to what they have held there in, will stand denuded to their status as precedent. Subsequent observations made by the Apex Court in the said judgment are in relation to the facts of that particular case and the same can not be treated as ratio of the said judgment. 11. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Raj Kumari and others, AIR 2008 SC 403 , the Apex Court has clearly observed in this judgment that: "Every decision contains three basic postulates : (a) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts, (b) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts, and (c) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid's Theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context." 12. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid's Theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context." 12. In the above view of the matter, the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is modified to the extent that the employees in respect of whom the impugned award is passed, are not entitled to the prevailing minimum grade of pay and they are not considered to be the regular employees and their demand for regularisation cannot be acceded to. Since the parties are directed to bear their own costs before this Court as well as Tribunal, the direction to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of reference by the petitioner to the respondent is also quashed and set aside. 13. In the result, this petition is allowed and rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent, without any order as to costs. Petition Allowed.