JUDGMENT: l. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 9.8.2005, Annexure P-l, passed by the Industrial Court. 2. The petitioner, filed an application before the Labour Court for his classification on the post of driver. The Labour Court ordered that the petitioner is entitled to be classified as driver with effect from 20.1.1995 and he is also entitled to receive regular salary of the post of driver w.e.f. 20.1.1995. 3. Before the Labour Court the petitioner pleaded that he was engaged as driver w.e.f. 20.1.1995 and he was performing the duty of driver, however, he was not paid salary of the post of driver. The petitioner further contended that he was eligible to be classified as driver. The respondent in its written statement claimed that the petitiner was engaged on daily wage basis as Badlidar driver and he was directed to work as driver in absence of regular driver. The petitioner was never appointed as regular driver. There was no post vacant of regular driver. 4. In his deposition before the Labour Court the petitioner admitted that he was engaged as daily wager driver and when permanent driver was not available on a particular day, he used to work as driver in his place. From the statement of the petitioner himself before the Labour Court, it is clear that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages basis and he used to work as driver in place of a permanent driver. Hence, his position was of a Badali driver. 5. Hon 'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another v. S.G. Kotturappa and another. (2005) 3 SCC 409 , has held as under, in regard to Badali worker :- "The terms and conditions of employment of a Badli worker may have a statutory flavour but the same would not mean that it is not otherwise contractual. So long as a worker remains a Badii worker, he does not enjoy a status. His services are not protected by reason of any provisions of the statute. He does not hold a civil post. The services of a Radii worker may be discontinued, if for any reason he is not found suitable for the job for which his services were utilised as Badii. A Badii worker is eligible for payment of wages only for the number of days his services are utilised. He does not hold a civil post. The services of a Radii worker may be discontinued, if for any reason he is not found suitable for the job for which his services were utilised as Badii. A Badii worker is eligible for payment of wages only for the number of days his services are utilised. Services of a temporary employee or a Badii worker can be teminated upon compliance with the contractual or statutory requirements. A dispute as regards purported wrongful termination of services can be raised only if such termination takes place in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute governing the services." 6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court further in the case of M.P Housing Board and another v. Manoj Shrivastava, 2006 (2) JLJ 1 = (2006) 2 SCC 702 , has held, as under, in regard to right of daily wager to be classified as permanent under the provisions of the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 :-- "19. The appointment made by a person who has no authority there for would be void. A fortiori an appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute or constitutional obligation shall also be void. If no appointment could be made in terms of the statute, such appointment being not within the purview of the provisions of the Act, would be void; he cannot be brought within the cadre of permanent employees. The definitions of "permanent employee" and "temporary employee" as contained in the Rules must, thus, be construed having regard to the object and purport sought to be achieved by the Act" 7. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-quoted judgments and in view of the fact that the petitioner was engaged as Badlidar driver on daily wage basis, in our opinion, the Industrial Court has rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled to be classified as driver. 8. Consequently, we do not find merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. Looking to the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.