LPA No. 31 of 2003 14.7.2009 Present: Mr. JagdishThakur, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1. This Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 4.9.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.497 of 1997. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this Letters Patent Appeal are that at the instance of the appellants, reference was made to the Labour Court in the year 1988. It was registered as case No. 69/1988. It was answered in the affirmative by the learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court on 12.4.1990. Thereafter the appellants filed CWP No. 997/1992 in this Court. It was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 21.4.1993. The Division Bench had directed the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission to release one post of Clerk and one post of Steno-Typist within a period of one month and to appoint the appellants within a period of one month thereafter. The appellants filed application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity sake) before the Labour Court. It was decided by the learned Presiding Judge on 4.12.1996. The State Government filed CWP No. 497/97 assailing the award dated 4.12.1996. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 4.9.2003. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate has strenuously argued that the judgment dated 4.9.2003 is contrary to law. He then contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration the law cited at the Bar. The learned Advocate General has supported the judgment dated 4.9.2003. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The case has a long history. The award was made by the Labour Court in favour of the appellants on 12.4.1990. They approached this Court, as noticed above, by way of CWP No. 997/1992, which was decided on 21.4.1993. Thereafter the appellants filed application under section 33-C (2) of the Act. The learned Presiding Judge directed the State Government to make payment of Rs. 1,70,643/- and Rs. 1,34,628/- to the appellants, respectively as arrears of back wages within a period of 40 days failing which interest @ 12% per annum was payable. The learned Single Judge has correctly interpreted section 33-C (2) of the Act. The Labour Court could not entertain the application. It is necessary for the enforcement of section 33-C (2) that there shall be a pre-existing benefit or one flowing from the pre-existing right. The learned Single Judge has noted that the appellants have not joined their duties as Road Supervisor and Beldar, respectively despite the offer of engagement and reminders issued to them. The appellants have joined their duties as regular employees in terms of orders dated 9.6.2003 and 23.6.2003. The Labour Court could not travel beyond the award dated 12.4.1990. The Labour Court in the first award has not awarded the appellants pay scale of Steno Typist or Clerk-cum-Typist. The learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court has passed the order dated 4.12.1996 without jurisdiction. The appellants have wrongly invoked section 33-C (2) of the Act as there was no pre existing benefit or right available to them. Accordingly, we see no infirmity or illegality in the judgment dated 4.9.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge and the same is upheld. The learned Single Judge has correctly applied the ratio of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ganesh Razak and another, (1995) 1 SCC 235 and Tara and others vs. Director, Social Welfare and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 671 on the facts of this case. Consequently, the Letter Patent Appeal is dismissed. No costs. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 14, 2009. *awasthi*