“10. While allowing the petitions challenging the Award, learned Single Judge has observed that in cases of daily wagers, there is nothing like regular reinstatement, because, a daily wager is not a regular workman or employee. It is further observed that if a daily wager does not get wages for the whole month, then, the full back wages cannot be awarded in favour of such workman. Though the observation made by learned Single Judge qua regularisation cannot be faulted with, in our considered opinion, the view expressed by the learned Single Judge qua payment of wages cannot be endorsed. The employer cannot be allowed to resort to unfair labour practise by not paying wages and thereafter denial of full back wages to the workman on account of such practise adopted by the employer will be against the scheme and object of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the I.D. Act” for short). As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rundhan Singh, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3966, a host of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment, i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment, namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors which has to be taken into consideration, is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the employer. The facts of each case are to be examined and analysed for denying or granting the full back wages to the workman. It is the nature of work and mode of termination which determines the back wages and continuity of service of the workman. Section 25B of the I.D. Act defines continuous service. The Apex Court in the case of Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd., 2007 (1) SCC 533 has observed as under:
