ORDER : (V. Sujatha, J.) : Both these petitions are filed by the same petitioner but by claiming different relief, however the issue involved in these petitions can be decided by way of a common order. Therefore, I am of the view that it is appropriate to decide both the petitions by common order taking Writ Petition No.35434 of 2018 as leading petition. 2. W.P. No.35434 of 2018 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of MANDAMUS quashing the award dated 28-12-1998 passed in ID No.17/1998 passed by Indus Tribunal-II to the extent of without back wages as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, un-constitutional against the principals of natural justice, fair plea and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and pass...” 3. The petitioner herein was initially appointed as extra casual labour gangman under the Permanent Way Inspector (PWI), in South Central Railways, Ongole, on 10.10.1976 on payment of daily wages @4.50Ps., and the services of the petitioner were also utilized as Carpenter Kalasi. While so, one Mr. Chennulu took over as Permanent Way Inspector in November, 1978, who directed the petitioner to work as a gangman under a maistry. Accordingly, the petitioner worked as instructed up to 10.03.1979 and his name was also included in muster rolls. When the petitioner reported to duty on 13.03.1979, the petitioner was not provided the instrument required for the work and was marked as absent; which act continued till 22.03.1979. Challenging the action of the maistry, the petitioner has filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.184 of 1979, which was transferred to central administrative tribunal and was numbered as T.A.no.7/90; however, the same was dismissed on 20.12.1990 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as the same falls under the Industrial Tribunal Act. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Industrial Tribunal and filed I.D.No.17 of 1998, wherein, after an elaborate enquiry, award was passed on 28.12.1998 directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner into duty as casual labour afresh, without back wages. 4. Challenging the said award the respondent authorities have filed W.P.No.22792 of 1999, which was dismissed on 29.06.2010 as under: “…The Industrial Tribunal has undertaken extensive discussion on the basis of the voluminous evidence placed before it to arrive at just and proper conclusions. 4. Challenging the said award the respondent authorities have filed W.P.No.22792 of 1999, which was dismissed on 29.06.2010 as under: “…The Industrial Tribunal has undertaken extensive discussion on the basis of the voluminous evidence placed before it to arrive at just and proper conclusions. The petitioner is not able to point out any perversity in the award or lack of jurisdiction in the Tribunal. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed…” 5. Thereafter, the respondents have issued appointment letter dated 01.03.2013 appointing the petitioner as substitute track maintainer-IV (Fresh Face) in the civil engineering department in PB-1 cadre under the pay scale of Rs.4440-7440 without grade with a pre condition that the petitioner has to acquire minimum qualification of 10th class or ITI or equivalent. The petitioner, having no other option has joined in the service on 07.03.2013 but however challenged the appointment orders vide W.P.No.29302 of 2015 on the ground that the appointment order is contrary to the award passed by the labour Court on 28.12.1998. Pending the said writ petition, the petitioner has retired from service on 31.01.2018 upon attaining the age of superannuation. Seeking a direction to the respondents to pay back wages to the petitioner from 10.03.1979 till the date of retirement i.e. 31.01.2018 with cumulative effect by considering promotions on par with similarly placed employees in the same cadre since 10.03.1979 and further seeking to quash the award dated 28.12.1998 to the extent of ‘without back wages’, the present writ petition is filed. 6. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 28.12.1998 in I.D.No.17 of 1998 has directed the respondents to take the petitioner as a casual worker afresh without back wages which attained finality on appointing the petitioner as Substitute Track Maintainer-IV, implementing the Industrial Tribunal award consequent to the dismissal of W.P.No.22792 of 1999 filed by the respondents against the said award. It is further stated that the petitioner though has contested in W.P.No.22792 of 1999, neither challenged the award dated 28.12.1998 for not allowing back wages to him nor filed an appeal against the order passed by this Court on 29.06.2010. 7. It is further stated that the petitioner though has contested in W.P.No.22792 of 1999, neither challenged the award dated 28.12.1998 for not allowing back wages to him nor filed an appeal against the order passed by this Court on 29.06.2010. 7. It is further stated that though the award passed by the tribunal is to take the petitioner as casual labour afresh, due to decasualization of the casual labour system, the petitioner was appointed as substitute gangman in 1S pay band Rs.4440-7440, which was communicated vide letter dated 05.10.2012 of the Chief Personnel Officer. Accordingly, the petitioner was sent the appointment letter dated 10.11.2012 with the following conditions: “1. It is proposed to offer you a post in PB-I s in Rs.4440- 7440 without grade pay as a substitute Gang man (Fresh Face) plus usual dearness allowance subject to passing the prescribed medical examination by an authorized medical officer of this Railway and on production of your original certificates and satisfactory proof in support of your educational qualifications, date of birth, caste etc. 2. You will be given regular pay band-15200-20200+1800 GP only after acquiring the minimum educational qualifications i.e. 10th class or ITI or equivalent. 3. The period spent in -Is pay band will not count as regular service, it will start after placement in PB-1 with GP 1800 as per RBE 166/2011. 4. You will be held responsible for the charge and care of Government money, grade and stores and all other property that may be entrusted to you. 5(a) You will not be eligible for any pension or any benefit under the state Railway provident Fund or Gratuity rules or to any absentee allowance beyond the admission to temporary employee under the rules in force from time to time during such temporary service. 9. If you intended taking the appointment on these conditions, please sign your acceptance and return this form, a duplicate copy of which is enclosed for retention by you. If the event of your acceptance, please call at this office on or before 20.11.2012 failing which this offer will not be renewed. Your pay will commence from the date you join duty after you have been certified medically fit.” 8. It is further stated that having accepted the above terms and conditions in the offer of appointment dated 19.11.2012, the petitioner has joined as substitute gangman on 07.03.2013. Your pay will commence from the date you join duty after you have been certified medically fit.” 8. It is further stated that having accepted the above terms and conditions in the offer of appointment dated 19.11.2012, the petitioner has joined as substitute gangman on 07.03.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.29302 of 2015 (which is also being decided by way of this common order) with the following prayer: “to pass an writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declare the appointment letter vide bearing No SCR/PBZA/113/3/Engg/DVRR dated 01-03-2013 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal and contrary to the award dt 28 12 1998 passed by the Honble Industrial Tribunal-II Hyderabad in ID No 17 of 1998 and subsequently direct the respondents to pay back wages from 28121998 with cumulative effect and to apply the same for future wages and to consider for promotion at par with the similarly placed employees in the same cadre since 28121998 and to pass such other order or orders as this Honble tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice” 9. It is further stated that the petitioner has retired from service on 31.01.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years and was paid the retirement benefits as per his entitlement. As such, the writ petition W.P.No.29.02 of 2015 which was filed challenging the appointment letter dated 01.03.2013 stand infructuous. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the term 'casual labour’ is referred to those persons whose employment is seasonal, intermittent and sporadic or extends over short periods. Engagement of casual labour may be for a short duration on specific work and they are primarily engaged to supplement the regular staff in work of seasonal or sporadic nature, which arises in the day to day working of the Railway system. The casual labour will be paid with wages on daily basis as and when their services are utilised and their services will be deemed to have been terminated when they do not attend to work or at the end of the day and it is not a continuous employment. It is further stated that if the casual labour service is not utilised, for that day no wages will be paid i.e. No work No pay. It is further stated that if the casual labour service is not utilised, for that day no wages will be paid i.e. No work No pay. Further, the casual labour engaged for more than 120 days without break will be treated as temporary (i.e. given "temporary status") on completion of 120 days continuous employment. The petitioner was not granted with temporary status since he was not on continuous employment for 120 days during his engagement as casual worker prior to 10.03.1979. It is noteworthy that the Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 28.12.1998 directed to take the petitioner as a Casual Labour fresh face since he was not granted temporary status. The conditions applicable to permanent and temporary staff do not apply to casual labour. It is stated that the petitioner was a casual labour on daily wage basis prior to 10.03.1979 and he was paid wages for the day he works as his employment is not continuous. Further, the petitioner did not work during 10.03.1979 to 07.03.2013 with the respondents. The petitioner ought to have claimed for wages when the respondents have filed W.P.No.22792 of 1999 against the award dated 28.12.1998. No orders were specifically passed in the order dated 29.06.2010 regarding back wages of the petitioner herein, as such, the petitioner is estopped from claiming the wages from 10.03.1979. Hence, requested to dismiss the two writ petitions. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Srinivas Mallampalli, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 11. On a perusal of the material available on record, it can be seen that the petitioner herein worked as casual labour intermittently up to 13.03.1979 and was not allowed subsequently by the respondent authorities since the work is seasonal, intermittent and sporadic; aggrieved by which the petitioner has approached the civil court vide O.S.No.184 of 1979 which was subsequently numbered as T.A.No.7 of 1990 and was dismissed on 20.12.1990 on the ground of jurisdiction. A petition before the Industrial tribunal was filed by the petitioner wherein an award was passed on 28.12.1998 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “…Under these circumstances it is not possible to hold that he was retrenched illegally but taking into account a long battle, a direction can be given to take the petitioner back as a casual worker, without backwages. In the result I hold that there is no illegality in discontinuation of the petitioner from work, and the respondents are directed to take the petitioner as a casual worker afresh. Accordingly the issue is answered.” 12. It has to be observed that the tribunal has directed the respondents to take the petitioner as a casual worker, without any back wages. The said award was challenged by the respondent authorities vide W.P.No.22792 of 1999, wherein this Court has passed the following order on 29.06.2010: “The circumstances, under which this Court can interfere with an award passed by the Labour Court, are very limited. In this case, though an attempt is made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to convince this Court that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the 1* respondent, the record clearly discloses that the 1" respondent was included in the muster for quite a long time. He squarely answers the description of workman as defined under the Act. Having regard to the length of the time for which, the 1st worked, he could not have been retrenched except by following the procedure prescribed by law. Admittedly no such procedure was followed. The Industrial Tribunal has undertaken extensive discussion on the basis of the voluminous evidence placed before it to arrive at just and proper conclusions. The petitioner is not able to point out any perversity in the award or lack of jurisdiction in the Tribunal. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.” 13. On a perusal of the award, it can be seen that the respondents herein were not able to point out any perversity in the award dated 28.12.1998 and as such, the award was upheld by this Court. It can also be observed that though the petitioner herein has contested in the aforesaid writ petition, he has not sought for modification of the award in so far as back wages are concerned. 14. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 29.06.2010, the petitioner was served an appointment letter dated 10.11.2012 where certain conditions were stipulated as referred supra. As the petitioner has accepted the said conditions, the respondent authorities have issued office order dated 01.03.2013 and pursuant to the same, the petitioner has joined the duty on 07.03.2013. 14. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 29.06.2010, the petitioner was served an appointment letter dated 10.11.2012 where certain conditions were stipulated as referred supra. As the petitioner has accepted the said conditions, the respondent authorities have issued office order dated 01.03.2013 and pursuant to the same, the petitioner has joined the duty on 07.03.2013. However, the said office order dated 01.03.2013 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court vide W.P.No.29302 of 2015 alleging that the said order is contrary to the award dated 28.12.1998 and further sought for a direction to the respondents to pay back wages to him from the date of passing of the award. 15. It can be seen that after a period of almost two (2) years from the date of joining in duty, the petitioner has challenged the office order dated 01.03.2013 passed by the respondent authorities by way of W.P.No.29302 of 2015. Having accepted the conditions stipulated in the appointment letter dated 19.11.2012 and having joined the duties on 07.03.2013 in pursuance of office order dated 01.03.2013, the petitioner has challenged the said proceedings after a lapse of two (2) years. However, the petitioner has retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2018 and was also paid the retirement benefits as per his entitlement. The petitioner having taken a chance by joining the duties in pursuance of the order dated 01.03.2013 cannot challenge the same before this Court after a lapse of two (2) years; and as the petitioner has already retired from service on 31.01.2018, the petition filed by him vide W.P.No.29302 of 2015 challenging the office order dated 01.03.2013 is liable to be dismissed. 16. In so far as the other writ petition i.e. W.P.No.35434 of 2018 is concerned, the point that needs to be decided is whether the petitioner is eligible to be paid the back wages from 10.03.1979. 17. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was initially appointed as casual labour by the respondents and has worked till 13.03.1979; thereafter he was not allowed by the respondent authorities since the work is seasonal, intermittent and sporadic. ‘Casual labour’ is characterized by seasonal, intermittent, and short-term engagements, primarily intended to support regular staff during fluctuating workloads. Payment is made on a daily basis, contingent on attendance, with a strict "No work, No pay" policy. ‘Casual labour’ is characterized by seasonal, intermittent, and short-term engagements, primarily intended to support regular staff during fluctuating workloads. Payment is made on a daily basis, contingent on attendance, with a strict "No work, No pay" policy. If a casual worker is employed continuously for over 120 days, they may be granted "temporary status," but the same has not been applied to the petitioner, as he did not meet the 120 day requirement prior to 10.03.1979. The Industrial Tribunal in the award dated 28.12.1998 held that the petitioner should be considered a fresh Casual labour as he has not received temporary status. It can further be seen that the rights and conditions for permanent and temporary staff do not extend to casual workers. 18. The petitioner did not challenge the award dated 28.12.1998, regarding back wages, nor did he contest it in the writ petition filed by the respondent authorities against that award in 1999. This Court upheld the award vide order dated 29.06.2010, after which the petitioner received an appointment on 01.03.2013, and subsequently joined his duties on 07.03.2013. However, the petitioner challenged the proceedings dated 01.03.2013, two years later, through W.P.No.29302 of 2015. After retiring, he filed W.P.No.35434 of 2018 to contest the 1998 award which is 20 years later. The petitioner worked as a casual laborer on daily wages prior to 10.03.1979, but did not engage with the respondents again until 07.03.2013, when he was re-employed. As the petitioner was a ‘casual labour’ and has not worked with the respondents from 10.03.1979 until 07.03.2013, he is not entitled for back wages. Even otherwise, the petitioner failed to challenge the award dated 28.12.1998 for back wages and has failed to contest the same in the writ petition filed by the respondents vide W.P.No.22792 of 1999. As such, this Court believes that the petitioner is precluded from claiming back wages. 19. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merits in these two petitions and they are liable to be dismissed. 20. Accordingly, both these writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.