JUDGMENT L.N. Reddy, J. 1. This Writ Appeal arises out of the order dated 17.02.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.1968 of 2008. 2. The first respondent herein (for short 'the respondent') is said to have been engaged as NMR to work as a water boy in the first appellant organization, in the year 1997. On 31.03.2001, he was said to have been informed not to attend the duties w.e.f. 01.04.2001. Accordingly, he stopped working in the first appellant organization. 3. The respondent filed I.D. No. 54 of 2003 before Labour Court, Guntur, under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), complaining that he was terminated from service in contravention of Section 22-F of the Act. It was pleaded that neither any compensation was paid nor any notice was issued. The appellants opposed the I.D. by filing counter. According to them, there were about four regular Attenders in the office and there is no scope or necessity to have another person for discharging those very duties. It was also pleaded that he was never engaged as Attender by the competent authority and the question of reinstating him does not arise. Through its award dated 28.02.2007, the Labour Court found that the retrenchment of the respondent from service was contrary to Section 25-F of the Act. However, in the context of granting relief, the Labour Court felt it appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. 4. Not satisfied with the relief granted by the Labour Court, the respondent filed W.P. No. 1968 of 2008. He pleaded that he was not only entitled to be reinstated into service, but also to be regularized and that the benefits must be extended. The Writ Petition was opposed by the appellants by filing a counter affidavit. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition through order dated 17.02.2012 directing that the appellants shall reinstate the respondent into service against any permanent vacancy as and when arises and till such time, they shall continue the respondent on daily wage basis by paying 50% of the last drawn wages till he is reinstated. It is also directed that the respondent shall be entitled for the benefit of continuity of service. Hence, this Writ Appeal. 5. Heard the learned Advocate General for the appellants and Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. It is also directed that the respondent shall be entitled for the benefit of continuity of service. Hence, this Writ Appeal. 5. Heard the learned Advocate General for the appellants and Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. The basic facts are not in dispute. The respondent was informed that he need not attend for duties from 01.04.2001. Though no written order in this context was passed, the appellants did not deny that they have asked the respondent not to work from 01.04.2001 onwards. The Labour Court recorded a specific finding to the effect that the acts and omissions, on the part of the appellants, constitute retrenchment of the respondent in contravention of Section 25-F of the Act. However, in stead of granting the relief of reinstatement into service, the one of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- was granted. It is not surprising that the respondent was not satisfied with the relief granted by the Labour Court. He was very much justified in pressing for reinstatement into service and payment of backwages. The learned Single Judge, however, proceeded further and directed that the respondent shall be appointed against a permanent vacancy, as and when it arises and till such time, he shall be paid 50% of the backwages. The relief of attendant benefits was also granted. The relevant paragraph reads as under: "The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service in any vacancy available or as and when vacancy arises in a permanent post. Till such time, they are directed to engage the petitioner on daily wage basis. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to 50% of the last drawn wages till he is reinstated. He is also entitled for the benefit of continuity of service." 7. We find it difficult to fit this into the relief, which can be granted by the Labour Court under the Act. The finding that the retrenchment of a workman, contrary to Section 25-F of the Act, must result in reinstatement into service and payment of backwages. The question as to whether other attendant benefits can be granted, would depend upon the post, which the workman was occupying. It is only when the employee was drawing a regular scale of pay before retrenchment, that the question of attendant benefits would assume significance. The question as to whether other attendant benefits can be granted, would depend upon the post, which the workman was occupying. It is only when the employee was drawing a regular scale of pay before retrenchment, that the question of attendant benefits would assume significance. When the workman is only on daily wages, hardly, there exists any scope for granting the relief of attendant benefits. 8. In case, such a workman is entitled for any other reliefs, such as that of regularization or enhancement of wages, separate proceedings have to be instituted before the concerned forum. An I.D. filed under Section 2(A)(2) of the Act would be an avenue for such reliefs. 9. We, therefore, partly allow the Writ Appeal, modifying the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the award in I.D. No. 54 of 2003, to the effect that- "(a) the appellants shall reinstate the respondent workman into service; (b) they shall pay backwages in accordance with law; and (c) in case, the respondent feels that he is entitled for any other reliefs, such as regularization, it shall be open to him to workout his remedies, in accordance with law." 10. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this Writ Appeal shall stand disposed of.