JUDGMENT : JAYANT PATEL, J. 1. Present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 28.1.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5438 of 2008 read with the order dated 5.3.2013 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 420 of 2013, whereby the learned Single Judge has maintained the award for reinstatement but has quashed the award of the labour court for back wages. 2. We have heard Ms. Vandana L. Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.P. Banaji, learned A.G.P. for the respondent. 3. Ms. Bhatt raised contention that the award for back wages ought not to have been quashed by the learned Single Judge and 20% back wages which were awarded by the labour court ought to have been maintained. Ms. Bhatt submitted that as such, the labour court ought to have ordered for regularisation of the services of the appellant workman since he was working for about last 17 years. Learned Single Judge not considered the said aspect properly and hence this Court may consider it in the appeal. She lastly submitted that the workman is already reinstated in service pursuant to the award passed by the labour court read with the order of the learned Single Judge. However, the respondent authority has passed order for recovery of the wages paid under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short), pending the petition on the principles of No Work, No Pay. Therefore, she submitted that in any case, the recovery may not be effected of the wages paid under section 17-B of the Act. 4. Mr. Banaji, learned A.G.P. is not in a position to dispute the aspect that when the award of reinstatement is stayed and the wages are paid under section 17-B of the Act pending the litigation and when the award is ultimately maintained, there is no question of recovery of the wages paid under section 17-B of the Act. 5. On the first aspect, it appears that the learned Single Judge has found that the back wages should not be ordered in a mechanical manner and the learned Single Judge further found that in view of the decisions of the apex court referred to by him in para 3, the prayer for back wages was required to be rejected by the labour court. 6. 6. We do not find that any error has been committed by the learned Single Judge for setting aside the award in so far as the back wages are concerned for the reason, inter alia, that the workman was a daily wager and further, the labour court once having found that the reliable evidence was not produced on behalf of the first party i.e. State Authorities but relevant aspect is that such cannot be the only ground for awarding back wages in a case where a person was engaged on daily wage basis. When there was no engagement, the wages would not fall automatically. In any case, the learned Single Judge has found that the labour court has not properly exercised discretion for awarding of 20% back wages. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error which may call for interference in the present appeal. 7. Next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the regularisation ought to have been ordered by the learned Single Judge or in any case by the labour court is ill-founded in as much as the appellant has not challenged the award so far as the non-grant of the relief for regularisation by the labour court is concerned. The award speaks for reinstatement and the said award was not challenged by the appellant but the State Government being aggrieved by the award, had preferred the petition before the learned Single Judge. In the petition of the State Government, relief of regularisation as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellant could neither be granted by the learned Single Judge nor can be considered in this appeal. Hence the said contention cannot be accepted. 8. However, the last contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant deserves consideration in as much as the wages already paid under section 17-b of the Act pending the proceedings of the Special Civil Application cannot be recovered. Even the learned A.G.P. is not in a position to dispute the said proposition. 8. However, the last contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant deserves consideration in as much as the wages already paid under section 17-b of the Act pending the proceedings of the Special Civil Application cannot be recovered. Even the learned A.G.P. is not in a position to dispute the said proposition. It is hardly required to be stated that when the award for reinstatement has been stayed on a condition of compliance of the provisions of section 17-B of the Act and the reinstatement is not effected and the wages are paid under section 17-B of the Act, and if at the ultimate conclusion, award is maintained or otherwise, in no case, the wages paid under section 17B can be recovered from the workman nor can it be said that the workman would be required to refund such amount paid to him under section 17-B of the Act. Under the circumstances, it is observed and held that the wages already paid to the workman pending the proceedings of the petition being Special Civil Application No. 5438 of 2008 for until he is actually reinstated in service, shall not be recovered by the respondent nor the same shall be required to be refunded by the appellant workman to the respondent. 9. Subject to the aforesaid observation and direction, present appeal is disposed of. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. With Appeal disposed of.