1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.617/2009 STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Vs. DEVA RAM GURJAR & ORS. Date of Judgment : 23.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Pradhyuman Singh for Mr. Anand Purohit, Additional Advocate General, for the appellant. BY THE COURT : This is an intra court appeal filed by writ petitioner of W.P. No.121/2007 under Rule 134 of Rajasthan High Court Rules against an order dated 1.4.2008 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition. 2. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of appellant. 3. So the short question that arises for consideration in this intra-court appeal is whether learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and 2 on perusal of record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal. In our view, the writ court was right in his reasoning and conclusion. 5. This is what, the learned Single Judge held while dismissing the appellant's writ in limine. “By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the order dated 31.5.2006 passed by the learned labour court, Bhilwara determining back-wages of the respondent- workman asper the provisions of Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The back-wages in favour of the workman accrued as a consequent to award dated 19.1.2005. Validity of the award aforesaid has already been affirmed, and therefore, I do not find any error in determination of the due amount by the labour court under the order dated 31.5.2006. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed.” 6. We are not able to notice any kind of error whether on facts or in law in the impugned order. In fact, the State ought not to have filed even the writ petition what to say this intra court appeal once the writ petition came to be dismissed by the writ court. 7. In such petty matter, which otherwise do not involve any legal issue, the State should refrain from pursuing litigation in higher courts. It is clear from the facts stated infra. 3 8. The labour court allowed the application of employee (respondent herein) made under Section 33(c)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act against the State. The relief was claimed on the basis of earlier award dated 19.1.2005 passed in favour of respondent by the labour court because despite there being an award in his favour, the State did not comply with it and denied the monitory benefits arising out of it. It was for this reason, the respondent (employee) was constrained to file the application under Section 33(c)(2) ibid before labour court and the same was rightly allowed by labour court by order dated 31.5.2006. 9. The State instead of ensuring compliance of such order of labour court, filed a writ petition, challenging the said order, out of which this appeal arises. The writ court rightly dismissed the writ petition by impugned order and upheld the order of labour Court. 10. As observed supra, the appeal has no merit whatsoever. If the labour court was right in allowing the application by its order dated 31.5.2006, the writ court was right in dismissing the writ petition by impugned order. In fact, all that is needed to allow the application made under Section 33(c)(2) ibid, is that there must be pre-existing determined rights in favour of employee/workman, which can be made basis for quantifying money claim of employee. In this case, the labour court having determined the rights of the parties by an award dt. 4 19.1.2005 in favour of respondent, the same could be made basis by respondent for claiming monitory benefits flowing from such award. 11. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed in limine. [Dinesh Maheshwari], J. [A.M. Sapre],J. /Anil/