1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3480/2010 Ram Singh vs. Managing Director, RSRTC & Ors. Date of order : 29/3/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ram Rakh Sharma for the petitioner. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to consider the petitioner as regularised in service with effect from the date of passing of award dated 27.3.2002 and grant him all the consequential benefits. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner approached the learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur by filing the application under Section 33(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because the respondents did not comply with the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) while terminating his services. That application was allowed by the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 27.3.2002. There against, the 2 respondents filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5448/02 before this Court, which was also dismissed by judgement dated 18.9.2007. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner applied for benefits under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the respondents have reinstated him in service on 28.8.2003. The respondents have now passed the order dated 12.12.2007 regularising the petitioner in service and granting him regular pay scale, for a probation period of one year. It is contended that the service rendered by the petitioner from the date of award till passing of the aforesaid order dt. 12.12.07, cannot be ignored and that the regularisaoitn of the petitioner shall be made from the date of award or at least from the date the petitioner is reinstated in service in terms of the order passed by this Court on the application filed under Section 17-B of the Act. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, I find that the Industrial Tribunal has merely declared 3 termination of the petitioner as illegal and the resultant effect would be that petitioner when reinstated, got the same status, in which he was working immediately before his reinstatement. At that time, admittedly the petitioner was working on daily wage basis and, therefore, even with the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the respondents, that status of the petitioner would not get altered because the judgement of this Court merely upheld the award passed by the Labour Court. The respondents have now passed a fresh order dated 12.12.2003, by which the petitioner was placed on probation for a period of one year and was regularised in service. In that order, he was granted regular pay scale. It cannot be said that the respondents committed any illegality in passing that order on the said date because the petitioner has not cited any new or fresh ground to show that any of his juniors were regularised in earlier point of time or that there was otherwise any justification in passing such order on the date of award or on the date, he was reinstated in service 4 pursuant to the order passed by this Court under Section 17-B of the Act. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/