SBCWP No.5719/02. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5719/2002. Bhanwar Vs. Executive Engineer, CAD Bundi & Anr. Date of order : December 1, 2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Deepak Goyal for the petitioner. Shri K.S. Chandel for the respondents. **** BY THE COURT :- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16/4/2002 whereby, his application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was partly allowed by the learned labour court. 2) Shri Deepak Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the award passed by the labour court was upheld by this Court dismissing writ petition filed by the respondent-State in SBCWP No.5304/97 vide order dated 16/3/1999, the petitioner who was initially appointed on 1/1/1976 and was retrenched from service on 31/10/1983, would be SBCWP No.5719/02. 2 entitled to continuity in service as per award and on that basis, he should have been paid wages in regular pay scale for the period even subsequent to the date of the award because he was already granted semi- permanent status vide order of the respondents dated 23/4/1979 w.e.f. 1/1/1979. Learned labour court erred in law in granting wages to the petitioner from the date of award till his reinstatement @Rs.452.50 per month. 3) From perusal of the impugned-order passed by the Judge Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Act clearly, it is revealed that Judge, Labour Court passed the aforesaid order in conformity with the judgment of this Court dated 16/3/1999 whereby award was partially modified and it was directed that though the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement but he would be paid arrears of salary only from the date of the award i.e. 24/2/1997 on the same terms and conditions on which he was working before termination. Evidence that was led before the labour court proved that at the time of his removal, petitioner was getting salary of Rs.452.50 per month and on that basis, arrears were ordered to be paid. The contention of the petitioner that he should be paid salary in the regular pay scale in terms of the order dated 23/4/1979 because he was granted semi- permanent status by the aforesaid order dated 1/1/1979, cannot be accepted as no such order was SBCWP No.5719/02. 3 produced before the labour court nor any argument was raised before it. If any such order was passed and same was not given effect to. The fact is that the direction of this Court in the judgment aforesaid dated 16/3/1999 modifying the award in question was to the effect that petitioner shall be paid for the period from the date of the award till reinstatement on the same terms and conditions on which he was working before termination and respondents have proved this as a question of fact that petitioner was getting salary of Rs.152.50 per month at the time of his termination, the learned labour court which only was required to compute entitlement of the petitioner could not have gone beyond what was directed by this Court on the analogy that what was being paid to the petitioner at the time of his termination, did not represent the correct salary and that he should have been paid more than that. I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil