1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Child Development Project Officer, Woman & Child Development Department, Bagidora & Anr. Vs. Magan Lal & Anr. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2149/2005 DATE OF ORDER :: February 07, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Ms.Vidhyawati Bora, Asstt. G.A. Mr.P.R.Mehta for respondent workman. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order Annexure-7 dt. 22.12.2003 passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, Banswara. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that respondent-workman was engaged at the rate of Rs.22/- per day as daily rated workman. However, his services were retrenched 2 and, therefore, he moved to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal and Labour Court (for short `the Labour Court' hereinafter) against the order of retrenchment in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court made an award in favour of respondent-workman directing the employer petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman with back wages against which the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3688/97. In that writ petition, this Court vide order dt. 10.8.1998 dismissed the stay petition filed by the petitioners and, therefore, in compliance of the award of the Labour Court, the respondent workman was reinstated in service and was also paid the back wages on order being passed under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, this writ petition. The respondent-workman has already been reinstated and according to the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, whenever the minimum wage is revised, the workmen are entitled to such revision. Keeping in view the fact that the respondent-workman is continuing in service since long, he cannot be stagnated at the wage, which was applicable to him on the date of his initial engagement. In these circumstances, in my view, the conclusion arrived at by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act cannot be said to be erroneous. No case for warranting interference in 3 the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. [H.R.PANWAR],J. m.asif/-