1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.228/2008 The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dharm Singh & Anr. Date of Order :: 21-11-2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Dr. P.S. Bhati, Additional Advocate General for the appellant- State. Mr. R.S. Charan, for the respondent. Heard Dr. P.S. Bhati, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State and Mr. R.S. Charan, learned counsel for the respondent-workman. This appeal is directed against order dated 1.5.2007 whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the State of Rajasthan-appellant was dismissed. The order passed by the Labour Court in exercise of its power under Section 33(c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was under challenge in the writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge of this Court on basis of an earlier decision of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4211/2006, dismissed the writ application. 2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant challenges the decision of the Labour Court under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Act on the ground that the Labour Court in exercise of power as such, could not have gone beyond the award. He further submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 33 (c) (2) of the Act, the award could have been treated as a decree and necessary calculation could have been made strictly adhering to the award. Initially, an award was passed by the Labour Court on 7.1.2002 directing for reinstatement of the concerned workman with effect from the date of Notification i.e. 28.11.2000 with 30% of back wages. When the award was not complied with in its entirety, the concerned workman filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Act. On plain reading of the order passed by the Labour Court upon application under Section 33 (c) (2), it would appear that the labour court has not gone beyond the award so far payment of arrears, etc. was concerned; rather it calculated the amount payable to the workman as per award with all consequential benefits. This being the situation, the Labour Court, in our view, had acted within its jurisdiction and had not gone beyond the award. It is not the case of the appellant in clear terms that the award passed by the labourt court was honoured in its entirety; rather a vague statement is made that due salary was paid. The subsequent direction issued by the Labour Court in terms of Section 33 (c) (2) in that view of the matter, is wholly justified and in our view, no 3 interference would be required. The order passed by the Labour Court dated 2.4.2005 necessarily therefore, must be complied with by the Management-appellant forthwith, in case it has not been complied. The workman was dragged upto this Court and he appeared through his counsel, in our view therefore, it is a fit case where some cost should be awarded to compensate the concerned workman. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to the concerned workman. [SANGEET LODHA],J. [NARAYAN ROY],CJ. Praveen